Oral
Answers to
Questions

Women and Equalities

The Minister for Women and Equalities was asked—

Islamophobia: Definition

Debbie Abrahams: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on implementing a definition of Islamophobia.

Alex Cunningham: What recent discussions she has had with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the work of the anti-Muslim hatred working group.

Felicity Buchan: We will not tolerate anti-Muslim hatred in any form, and we will seek to stamp it out wherever it occurs. We are appointing an independent adviser to tackle the scourge of anti-Muslim hatred, to join our independent adviser on antisemitism. We have a programme for tackling anti-Muslim hatred, which includes the consideration of definitions. It also includes £117 million of funding to protect Muslim places of worship and faith schools until 2028.

Debbie Abrahams: Despite what the Minister says, many believe that the Government’s two-year delay in coming up with a definition on Islamophobia—the Conservatives are the only political party in the UK to have taken so long—reflects their indifference to the fear, discrimination and hatred that thousands of Muslims experience. Why has it taken so long?

Felicity Buchan: We do not agree with the all-party group on British Muslims’ definition of Islamophobia; we believe the most appropriate term is “anti-Muslim hatred”. Let me explain why. In this country, there is freedom of religion, and also freedom to criticise a religion. What someone cannot do is discriminate against or show hatred to me because of my religion.

Lindsay Hoyle: Alex Cunningham is not here. I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Anneliese Dodds: A senior Conservative who went on to become Prime Minister said that Muslim women “look like letter boxes”. A Conservative candidate for London Mayor said that she wants to defeat her Muslim opponent to make things safer “for our Jewish community”. A former Conservative deputy chairman said that Islamists have “got control” of the Mayor of London. Are those incidents of anti-Muslim hatred the kind of incidents that the Minister just said will not be tolerated?

Felicity Buchan: We have made it very clear that a number of these comments we just do not accept—we think they are wrong—but before the hon. Lady throws abuse at Conservative Members, she should take a look at what is happening on the Labour Benches. Hers is the only party that has been sanctioned by the Equality and Human Rights Commission for institutional racism. Her party has now given the Whip back to the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Andy McDonald), even though the Labour party said that his comments were deeply offensive. The right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has also had the Whip suspended because of antisemitism.

Anneliese Dodds: It is important that we do not trade abuse about these very serious issues. [Interruption.] With respect, that was the tone that I adopted. Where there are issues with political parties, rather than laughing about them, we should take action. That is what the Labour party did after the EHRC investigation. Sadly, the Conservatives have not acted to develop a definition of anti-Muslim hatred. We have changed, but the Conservatives have not. A definition was promised, and an adviser was appointed to develop one five years ago—perhaps the Minister is unaware of that—but today there is still no definition. There is no adviser now, no active anti-Muslim hate crime working group, no hate crime strategy, and minimal action on tackling online hate. When are the Government going to wake up to this problem?

Felicity Buchan: As I said, this Government are completely committed to supporting our Muslim communities. We have said that we will appoint an independent adviser. We have made more money available to protect mosques and Muslim faith schools. I am visiting my local mosque, al-Manaar, this afternoon/early evening to attend an Iftar. If one looks at the composition of the Conservative Front Bench and at how diverse the people there are, one can see clearly that our party is committed to diversity and equality.

HIV Action Plan

Peter Gibson: What recent steps the Government have taken to implement the HIV action plan.

Maggie Throup: What recent steps the Government have taken to implement the HIV action plan.

Stuart Andrew: Our 2021 HIV action plan sets out actions to achieve no new HIV transmissions by 2030 in England. To deliver that, the Department of Health and Social Care is investing more than £4.5 million between 2021 and 2025 to deliver the HIV prevention programme.

Peter Gibson: Happy St Cuthbert’s day, Mr Speaker.  I congratulate my right hon. Friend on all the work done in the fight against HIV, but does he agree that if we are to reach our commitment of zero transmissions by 2030, we need a four-pronged approach that includes improved sex education, an expansion of opt-out testing, better availability of pre-exposure prophylaxis, and finding the 13,000 people with HIV who are lost to care?

Stuart Andrew: My hon. Friend’s suggestions are right. Through opt-out testing, we have identified 1,000 cases of undiagnosed and untreated HIV. We have expanded that testing to a further 47 emergency rooms, so that we can find even more people. On the availability of PrEP, we are gathering evidence to understand why some population groups who would benefit from it are not accessing it; this is still an important area of work for us as a Government.

Maggie Throup: Since the funding has been secured for opt-out HIV testing in very high prevalence areas as part of the HIV action plan that I published when I was Minister for public health in 2021, the scheme has far exceeded expectations; over 4,000 people were newly diagnosed with HIV, hepatitis B or hepatitis C in just four cities in 21 months. The scheme also disproportionately identified women, people of black African ethnicity and older people with those blood-borne diseases. Will my right hon. Friend update the House on progress in expanding the programme to an additional 47 hospitals across England, including in Derby and Nottingham, and confirm that work is under way to ensure that opt-out testing will continue beyond April 2025?

Stuart Andrew: I put on record my thanks to my hon. Friend for the amazing work she did in the Department; the initiative has been a great success story. It is amazing that we have been able to find more cases, which is precisely why an extra £20 million has been allocated to increase the testing. I will write to colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care about what will happen post 2025, but we are doing lots of other work with partners, such as the Terrence Higgins Trust, to ensure that we do everything we can to make this important goal a reality.

Jim Shannon: In Northern Ireland, we have a proactive HIV action plan, but it is always good to share information about the work that is done here, and the work that is done back home. What discussions has the Minister had with the Department of Health in Northern Ireland on extending the HIV action plan guidelines to Northern Ireland? Let us exchange good ideas and move forward together.

Stuart Andrew: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman that we should always share information and best practice. I will make sure that colleagues in the Department of Health and Social Care hear his request and ensure that happens. At the end of the day, it is in all our shared interests to get to that goal by 2030.

Israeli Victims of Sexual Abuse by Hamas

Nicola Richards: What discussions she has had with Cabinet colleagues on support for Israeli victims of sexual abuse by Hamas.

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on behalf of Israeli victims of Hamas. This Government are appalled by reports of sexual violence since 7 October in Israel and Gaza. I am working closely with Cabinet colleagues on the issue. It is important to continue to highlight the fact that many hostages, both male and female, have still not been released, and they face the daily threat of rape, sexual assault and violence. Across Government, we have been meeting with their families. Just last week I met with the Hostage and Missing Families Forum, and I know that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have also done so in recent months.

Nicola Richards: A United Nations report recently confirmed that sexual violence was used against Israeli women on 7 October. Last week I raised concerns with the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office that women did not feel that they could trust the UN enough to speak about their experiences. Victims of sexual violence deserve a voice and to be treated with respect, so what can my right hon. Friend do to encourage the international community to unite in calling out sexual violence and those who seek to deny that it happens?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for highlighting the issue. She will be pleased to know that just last week, following calls from the UK, Lord Ahmad, the Minister in the other place, attended the UN Security Council to express deep concerns about the findings of the UN special representatives of the Secretary-General on their recent visit to the region. The UK is leading work internationally through our preventing sexual violence initiative, and through dedicated funding, totalling £60 million, to prevent conflict-related sexual violence and to strengthen justice and support for all survivors.

Gender Pay Gap

Gregory Campbell: If she will make an estimate of when the gender pay gap will be closed.

Maria Caulfield: It was this Conservative Government who introduced mandatory gender pay gap reporting for large employers, to shine a light on the gender pay gap and promote action to close it. As a result, the gender pay gap has fallen by approximately a quarter over the past decade.

Gregory Campbell: I thank the Minister for her response. Can she indicate whether the narrowing of the gender pay gap over the past 10 years has been less pronounced, in percentage terms, among women on lower incomes than among those on larger salaries?

Maria Caulfield: Actually, the results from our gender pay gap reporting are slightly different: it is in higher-paid professions that the gender pay gap seems to exist, but that is because women are often in low-paid work. The hon. Member is absolutely right to raise the issue. Next month, we are introducing a pay rise of 10% for the lowest paid through an increase to the national living  wage. After the national insurance cut, added on to the cut in January, people will be almost £900 better off in work.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Women and Equalities Committee.

Caroline Nokes: The issue is not just the gender pay gap; there is also the gender pension gap, the lack of women on boards, and the importance of making sure that we have a pipeline of talented women at every level. Yesterday, I was with the community interest company, Women on Boards, and its clear message to the Minister is, “Please can we have more action and fewer initiatives, to ensure that we make real progress in getting women in our companies, at every level?”.

Maria Caulfield: We absolutely are taking action. We are planning to introduce the pay transparency pilot, because in high-paid jobs, salaries are often not advertised, and women end up being paid less than men for the same role. It is such action that will make a difference to women across the country.

Menopause: Workplace Support

Gerald Jones: What steps the Government are taking to help support women experiencing menopause at work.

Mims Davies: In March 2023, I appointed Helen Tomlinson as the Government’s first menopause employment champion. We are working across Government and with employers to increase awareness and develop policies to support women experiencing the impact of menopause at work. We recently launched new guidance on the Help to Grow portal to empower businesses to educate their organisation about menopause.

Gerald Jones: Last July, we saw the introduction of the British Standards Institution standard on menstruation, menstrual health and menopause in the workplace. Earlier this month, the International Organisation for Standardisation voted to develop an international version. Will the Minister join me in congratulating the BSI, countless grassroots organisations, individuals including my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), and the menopause all-party parliamentary group, who have all worked tirelessly to ensure that menopausal women in this country are given the support that they so deserve?

Mims Davies: I am absolutely delighted to welcome all of that work. I also welcome the fact that the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) was able to join us in a roundtable discussion at Gower College. In fact, Jane from the BSI was one of a number of women to join our first menopause roundtable for International Women’s Day at No. 10, where we celebrated the BSI and its international achievements. Helen Tomlinson, too, has been recognised internationally.

Faith-based Discrimination and Harassment

Fleur Anderson: What steps she is taking with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities to help reduce faith-based discrimination and harassment.

Felicity Buchan: All forms of religious hatred have absolutely no place in our communities, and we work with police and community partners to monitor and combat it. We are taking a broad approach to tackling religious hatred, and are engaging extensively with experts to explore how religious hatred is experienced by British communities and how it affects different faiths and individuals.

Fleur Anderson: There has been an appalling surge of antisemitism and Islamophobia in recent months, but the anti-Muslim hatred working group has been suspended since March 2020, and the hate crime strategy is four years old; we clearly need a new one to tackle the hate crime in our communities. Will the Minister commit to restarting the anti-Muslim hatred working group and bringing forward a new hate crime strategy?

Felicity Buchan: As I said in answer to previous questions, we will appoint a new adviser on anti-Muslim hatred. We are engaging with the Muslim community at senior levels. The Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities have recently met Tell MAMA, which plays a very important role in tackling hate crime. This Government are completely behind our Muslim communities, and we will absolutely do the right thing for them.

David Evennett: I welcome the Minister’s comments. We are all behind her, and endorse what she said, but can she give me some idea of recent progress she has made on delivering the Inclusive Britain action plan?

Felicity Buchan: We have been doing lots of work on that, and will be releasing the report today.[Official Report, 16 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 4WC.] (Correction)

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Kirsten Oswald: With permission, Mr Speaker, I will briefly pay tribute to my constituent Henry Wuga, whose funeral took place earlier today. Henry, who came to Glasgow on the Kindertransport, was a truly remarkable man. He and his late wife Ingrid made an enormous contribution to Scotland and the world through their work as holocaust educators. His legacy is truly immense, and I am sure that the House will join me in sending our thoughts to Henry’s family. May his memory be a blessing.
The increase in antisemitism and Islamophobia is eye-watering. It should be of serious concern to us all. Urgent action is needed on both fronts, and community cohesion and dialogue must be a priority. In recent months, there has been a 335% increase in Islamophobic hate cases in the UK. None the less, and despite our just having had the International Day to Combat Islamophobia, the UK Government have not convened the anti-Muslim hatred working group in more than four years. Now that the next anti-Muslim hatred adviser has quit over extremist threats, we need concrete answers. When will the Government take tackling Islamophobia seriously?

Felicity Buchan: On behalf of the Government, I pass on my condolences. We have made it incredibly clear that the Government are completely committed to tackling anti-Muslim hatred. We have upped the amount of money  going towards the protection of mosques and Muslim faith schools. We are about to appoint a new anti-Muslim hatred adviser. This is an effort across Government. I completely agree that the levels of both anti-Muslim hatred and antisemitism that we see at the moment are not acceptable. That is why we are dealing with it.

Workplace Inclusivity and Accessibility

Marco Longhi: What steps she is taking to help increase inclusivity and accessibility at work for disabled people.

Mims Davies: The Government have a programme of initiatives to support disabled people and people with health conditions in starting, staying and succeeding in work. That includes Access to Work, Disability Confident, and a digital information service for employers, which aim to increase inclusivity and accessibility for disabled people in the workplace.

Marco Longhi: The Beacon Centre for the Blind in Sedgley does amazing work. Meeting Kaydee and Nathan, who are partially sighted employees, was an inspiring experience. My visit to the centre served as a strong reminder of the significant day-to-day challenges that vulnerable people experience in doing things that able people take for granted. What more can the Minister and her Department do to raise awareness and better support charities such as the Beacon Centre and its users?

Mims Davies: I met representatives from the Disability Charities Consortium yesterday, and some of those matters were discussed. We have invested £2 billion in improving inclusivity and accessibility at work for disabled people and people facing health barriers. We have hundreds of jobcentres across the country, and fantastic work coaches are tapping into extra support through our network of disability employment advisers to assist people just like Kaydee and Nathan.

Marion Fellows: Adjustments are often vital for helping disabled people in their job, but Scope says that disabled workers face many issues with the Access to Work scheme, including a long wait for an assessment, a cap on costs, and  low awareness of the scheme among disabled people. Only 40% of them know about it. Will the Minister work with her Cabinet colleagues to improve the Access to Work scheme and prevent the disability employment gap from widening?

Mims Davies: The Access to Work scheme is a demand-led personalised discretionary grant, but working with employers, looking around occupational health and other interventions to support people are equally as important. I can assure the hon. Lady that I met my officials yesterday about the Access to Work scheme. I am looking at any delays, any impacts and any changes every couple of weeks to ensure that people who want to work and need support can get it in a timely fashion.

Topical Questions

Selaine Saxby: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Kemi Badenoch: I am pleased to announce today that the independent inclusion at work panel has launched their report on achieving fairness and inclusion for all in the workplace. The report, part of our inclusive Britain agenda, sets out how employers can do away with ineffective, divisive and poor-quality diversity and inclusion practices. It notes that the UK employs almost twice as many diversity and inclusion workers per head as any other country. Instead, we should focus resources on interventions backed by evidence, which will benefit all people. I thank the panel for their hard work and thoughtful consideration on this issue.

Selaine Saxby: My young disabled constituent Ella Wakley in Braunton goes to college, but her blue badge is accepted on buses only after 9.30 am, which is too late, so she has to pay for herself and her travel assistant. What steps is my right hon. Friend taking to ensure that improve accessibility for people such as Ella, who are trying to get on with their everyday lives?

Kemi Badenoch: As ever, my hon. Friend is a great advocate for her North Devon constituents. In the national bus strategy, the Department for Transport committed to conducting a wholesale review of the English national concessionary travel scheme. That will include reviewing eligibility and extensions to travel times for older and disabled people.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Ashley Dalton: Last week, the Minister for Women and Equalities rightly called the comments of Conservative party donor Frank Hester about the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) “racist.” It has since emerged that Mr Hester has said that a group of Indian members of staff should
“climb on the roof, like on the roof of the train”
and has made reference to “Asian corner.” Does the Minister agree that those comments are racist—yes  or no?

Kemi Badenoch: I understand why the Labour party insists on bringing this issue up over and over again, but Mr Hester has apologised for his comments, we have welcomed his apology, and we are drawing a line under it. We are focused on what matters to the people of this country. I had letters last week from people telling me that we were wasting time focusing on issues that were not relevant to them. We need to focus on what matters to the British people.

Nicholas Fletcher: Boys lag behind girls at every level at school, creating a gender attainment gap that has been in place for some 30 years. Will the Minister meet headteachers and a working group to see what we can do to reduce that gap?

Damian Hinds: I should be happy to. We want all children to reach their full potential.

Chi Onwurah: Will the Minister clarify when the right moment is to move on from a Tory donor calling for an MP to be shot in the context of hating all black women? Is it when there is an apology for rudeness? Is it when £5 million more has arrived in Tory coffers? Is it when she tires of explaining racism to her party? Or is it  when the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) says that justice has been done?

Kemi Badenoch: I am not going to take any lectures whatsoever from Labour Members. This is a good time to remind the House that it is only the Labour party that has been sanctioned for institutional racism by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. It continues to disappoint its members. Where is the Forde report? Why is the right hon. Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) complaining that nothing has been done about racism in the Labour party? We will take no lectures from them.

Bob Blackman: Despite an overwhelming consultation response and promises from the Government, caste as a protected characteristic still hangs over the Hindu community. We have now established that the current provision could be removed via statutory instrument. Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to remove it once and for all before the general election?

Stuart Andrew: I commend my hon. Friend, who has been working diligently on this important issue. Our view is that we need to do that through primary legislation. I recognise that it is important to many of his constituents and others, so I would be more than happy to meet him to see whether we can discuss a way forward.

Sarah Dyke: Compassion in Care’s helpline received 486 reports of homophobic abuse in care homes over the past four years, yet 481 of the service providers accounted for in those allegations are still rated as good by the Care Quality Commission. Will the Minister work with Cabinet colleagues to end discrimination against LGBTQ residents in care homes to ensure they are safe in the care system, and would she support the development of a “Pride in Care” quality mark and an LGBTQ+ care champions scheme?

Stuart Andrew: If only that cheer was for me.
The hon. Lady raises a really important point—it is something I feel really passionately about myself, and it is going to increase in prevalence as we get generations becoming older, because people have been more out in recent years. I have been speaking to people about this important area of work, and will continue to raise it with colleagues in relevant Departments.

Prime Minister

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Giles Watling: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 20 March.

Rishi Sunak: I know the whole House will join me in congratulating Vaughan Gething on his election as Welsh Labour leader and expected election as First Minister of Wales, and also in offering Mark Drakeford our best wishes on his retirement. The Government I lead will always work tirelessly to benefit the lives of people across the United Kingdom, and I look forward to working constructively with the new First Minister to deliver for the people of Wales.
This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Giles Watling: The people of Clacton have had a tough time with the cost of living, and I am doing everything I can to support them. With that in mind, does my right hon. Friend agree that cutting inflation is the very best way to do that, and that today’s statistics are very welcome? Can he reassure my constituents that he will continue working hard to get inflation as low as possible, in order to protect their savings, help with their bills and give them the financial security they deserve?

Rishi Sunak: Today’s figures show that our plan is working. Inflation has fallen to 3.4% from its peak of over 11%, down by almost 70%—the steepest fall since the 1980s, and now at the lowest level since September 2021—and people’s pay packets are going further, with real wages growing for eight months in a row and taxes being cut by £900 for the average worker. That is why we need to stick to the plan to deliver a brighter future for our country.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the Leader of the Opposition.

Keir Starmer: I thank the Prime Minister for his words in welcoming Vaughan Gething to his post as First Minister of Wales. As the first black leader of any European Government, it is a historic moment that speaks to the progress and values of modern-day Wales. I also pay tribute to Mark Drakeford for his long, steady service in Wales.
With violent prisoners released early because the Tories wrecked the criminal justice system, 3,500 small boat arrivals already this year because the Tories lost control of the borders, the NHS struggling to see people because the Tories broke it, millions paying more on their mortgages, a Budget that hit pensioners and a £46 billion hole in his sums, why is the Prime Minister so scared to call an election?

Rishi Sunak: As I said in January, my working assumption is that the election will be in the second half of the year. I must say, I thought that out of everybody, the Leader of the Opposition would be the most grateful, because he has now actually got time to come up with a plan for Britain. We are all looking forward to finally seeing it.

Keir Starmer: Oh, we are ready—just call it.
Let us just take the Prime Minister’s Rwanda policy. When the Tories first announced this gimmick, they claimed it would settle tens of thousands of people. The Home Office then whittled it down to a mere 300. Four  times that number have already arrived this month, and the backlog stands at 130,000. Can the Prime Minister see any flaw in his plan to deport less than 1% of that backlog?

Rishi Sunak: Since I became Prime Minister, the number of small boat crossings is actually down by over a third. That is because we have doubled National Crime Agency funding and we have increased illegal immigration enforcement raids by 70%. We have closed 7,500 bank accounts, deported 24,000 illegal migrants and processed over 112,000 cases—more than at any point in the last two decades. It is crystal clear, as we are seeing from the Labour party’s opposition in this House, that while we are committed to stopping the boats, the Labour party would keep them coming.

Keir Starmer: The tragedy is we know the Prime Minister does not even believe in the Rwanda gimmick. He tried to stop funding it, but he is now so diminished that his entire focus is stopping his MPs holding the sword of Damocles above his head—perhaps even literally in the case of the Leader of the House. His great hope is to placate those in his party with a couple of empty planes, praying they will not notice when the flights stop going, the boats are still coming and the costs keep mounting. How has he managed to spend £600 million of taxpayer money on a gimmick to deport 300 people?

Rishi Sunak: It is crystal clear that not only does the Labour party not have a plan to fix this issue, but the truth is it does not actually care about fixing this issue. The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about gangs. When we gave the police new powers to crack down on the people-smuggling gangs, he spent months campaigning and voting against it. But thanks to our new laws, 900 criminals have been arrested and 450 have been convicted, serving over 370 years behind bars. If it was up to him, those criminals would still be out on our streets. The truth is that, if he was not the Labour leader, he would still want to be their lawyer. [Hon. Members: “More!]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Keir Starmer: I have prosecuted more people smugglers than the Prime Minister has had helicopter rides, and that is a lot. [Interruption.] I have done it. This Rwanda gimmick is going to cost the taxpayer £2 million for every one of his 300 people that they deport. I know the Prime Minister likes to spend a lot on jet-setting, but that is some plane ticket. It is the cost of Tory chaos, and it is working people who are paying the price. The man he made his Immigration Minister let the cat out of the bag when he said the Prime Minister’s
“symbolic flights…will not provide a credible…deterrent”.
We know the Prime Minister himself thought it would not work. If the people selling this gimmick do not believe in it, why should the country?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. and learned Gentleman is very keen to talk about who he prosecuted. He is a bit less keen to talk about when he defended Hizb ut-Tahrir. But when it comes to this question of how to deal with people who are here illegally, his values are simply not those of the British people. After  all, this is the person who campaigned to stop the deportation of foreign dangerous criminals. A dangerous criminal was jailed for dealing class A drugs after he fought to keep him here. A gangmaster was convicted of carrying a knife after he fought to keep him here. So whether it is representing terrorists or campaigning for criminals, it is clear whose side he is on, and it is not the British people’s.

Keir Starmer: It is genuinely sad to see the Prime Minister reduced to this nonsense. Let us take another example, which I started with. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Keir Starmer: After 14 years of Tory chaos in the prison system, the Justice Secretary was reduced to begging the Prime Minister either to send fewer offenders to prison or to release them even earlier. I must say I have sympathy for anyone trying to get an answer out of the Prime Minister. So what is it going to be: fewer criminals behind bars in the first place, or more released early on to our streets? Which is it?

Rishi Sunak: Thanks to our record and plan, violent crime has fallen by 50%. We have recruited more police officers, given them more powers and kept serious offenders in prison for longer. What is the right hon. and learned Gentleman’s record? He voted against greater protection for our emergency workers, opposed tougher sentences for violent criminals and failed to give police the powers they need. It would be back to square one with Labour—soft on crime and soft on criminals.

Keir Starmer: You can see why he doesn’t want an election, Mr Speaker, why his party have lost faith in him, and why half his Cabinet are lining up to replace him—no answers, no plan, no clue. The Prime Minister has never had the courage to stand up to his party, so let me help him out and say to them what he wishes he could say: the mortgage mayhem, the waiting lists, the criminals walking free—they are the cost of Tory chaos. And if they cannot bring themselves to stop the endless games and gimmicks, and stop putting themselves before country, they should pack up, go home, and waste somebody else’s time. It wasn’t that difficult, was it, Prime Minister?

Rishi Sunak: The right hon. and learned Gentleman talks about his ideas, but we are two weeks on from the Budget. The shadow Chancellor found time to make a one-hour speech last night, and we still do not know how Labour is going to pay for its £28 billion black hole. But while he tries to talk down Britain and the progress we are making, today’s news shows that the plan is working—inflation down, energy bills down, wages up, pensions up, and taxes cut by £900. That is the choice: higher taxes and back to square one with Labour, or tax cuts and real change with the Conservatives.

Nickie Aiken: The UK birth rate is falling, the while numbers of those requiring fertility treatment to conceive are rising. There are no employment rights attached to those undertaking fertility treatment, and no paid time off work. Will the Prime Minister join me in encouraging employers, large and small and across  the United Kingdom, to sign up to the fertility workplace pledge that I have launched with Fertility Matters  at Work, LGBT Mummies, Fertility Network UK and many others, to support those undertaking fertility treatment when they are in work?

Rishi Sunak: May I start by thanking my hon. Friend for her excellent work campaigning on this issue? She is right: employers should offer their staff understanding, support, and flexibility while they are undergoing fertility treatment. The best way to improve the experience of those undergoing treatment, both women and their partners, is through voluntary approaches. That is why I join my hon. Friend in encouraging all companies to sign up to the fertility workplace pledge.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP leader.

Stephen Flynn: With his Back Benchers looking for a unity candidate to replace him, which of the now numerous born-again Thatcherites on the Labour Front Bench does the Prime Minister believe best fits the bill?

Rishi Sunak: It was surprising, Mr Speaker, to hear all this talk about the 1970s from the shadow Chancellor in particular, but if you see what is happening in places like Birmingham, where taxes are going up  by 21% and services are being cut—whether that is social care, children’s services, or in some streets the lights literally being turned off—it is unsurprising why they are talking about the ’70s. I just say that what they have done to Birmingham, the Conservatives will never let them do to Britain.

Stephen Flynn: Of course there is a serious point to be made here, because the Institute for Fiscal Studies has warned of the conspiracy of silence that exists between the Labour party and the Conservative party when it comes to £18 billion of looming public sector cuts. Indeed, just last night it outlined that the fiscal rules of the Labour party and the Conservative party are, in effect, identical. With such continuity on offer, the public are right to be anti-Westminster, aren’t they?

Rishi Sunak: I am surprised to hear the hon. Gentleman quoting the IFS, because it also described the recent SNP Budget as, in its words, “misleading”, and said that
“pain is almost certainly coming”.
It is a savage tax and axe budget, because here is the reality: while NHS spending in England is going up in real terms, in Scotland it is going down; while taxes are being cut by the UK Government, the SNP Government are putting them up. That is the contrast, and where the SNP or indeed Labour are in charge, it is working people who pay the price.

Sheryll Murray: The Prime Minister rightly often criticises the Scottish Government for the extra tax they put on residents. In my part of Cornwall, we have an extra tax called the Tamar toll. I have been working on a petition with my constituency neighbour, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer).  Will the Prime Minister make our part of the country more competitive by losing this extra tax and helping our community to level up?

Rishi Sunak: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important local issue. Any application for a toll revision will be considered by the Transport Secretary at the right opportunity when it has been received, but I am told that there are plans in place to create a new locally led focal group of key stakeholders to ensure that there is a real opportunity for them to make their views about crossings heard, and I know that she will play an active role in that group.

Jeffrey M. Donaldson: Yesterday saw the Northern Ireland Assembly for the first time in its history exercise its new veto powers to prevent the application of new EU law that would harm our ability to trade with the rest of the United Kingdom. That is something that the DUP campaigned to achieve when others were calling for rigorous implementation of the protocol. To his credit, the Prime Minister was able to work with us to deliver the real changes to the protocol that will help to restore Northern Ireland’s place within the United Kingdom and its internal market.
Will the Prime Minister now assure me that the Government will continue to faithfully implement the measures outlined in the Command Paper, “Safeguarding the Union”, including fully restoring our place within the United Kingdom and its internal market and ending the unnecessary checks on goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland?

Rishi Sunak: I want to congratulate my right hon. Friend again on his leadership of Unionism. I agree that it has been an encouraging few weeks, and  I salute the work of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister in representing the future of Northern Ireland. I assure him that we will implement our commitments at pace, including further regulations to be laid before this House in the coming days to take power to deliver those commitments on UK internal trade. We are also hosting the first meeting of the UK East-West Council and establishing Intertrade UK, but it comes down to this fundamental point, and I know that he will agree: Northern Ireland’s place is stronger in the Union, with locally elected politicians in place representing the needs of all parts of the community.

Edward Leigh: Noting the National Audit Office report today on the spiralling costs of using ex-military bases for migrants, and noting that the Home Office has announced this week that it is to reduce the projected numbers at RAF Scampton down to 800, will the Prime Minister ensure that an immigration Minister meets West Lindsey District Council and me urgently, so that we can release most of this iconic RAF base— the home of the Red Arrows and the Dambusters—for regeneration?

Rishi Sunak: I pay tribute to the way that my right hon. Friend has engaged with the Government on this important issue for his local community. As he acknowledged, our plan is working to cut the use of asylum hotels, and we will have closed 100 hotels next week, on top of cutting small boat arrivals. I know that he is talking to the Minister for Legal Migration and  the Border, my hon. Friend the Member for Corby (Tom Pursglove), about how best to accommodate a smaller number of asylum seekers safely at RAF Scampton, while recognising the council’s ambitious plans for regeneration. I fully support those discussions, and the Government are committed to the site being used for accommodation for the shortest possible time and then released for the benefit of the local community.

Layla Moran: Our NHS is at breaking point. My constituent was told that he needed a gall bladder operation after  a visit to accident and emergency. He waited all day in hospital, nil by mouth, and had no operation. He was then told to stay overnight or risk his place on the list, so he sat in a hot, smelly, windowless waiting room for eight hours on a plastic chair. Then a gurney came with no pillow, and that is where he slept. The next day, the nurses said, “No operation. There just aren’t any beds.” His wife told me that the Conservatives are running the NHS into the ground. Given his experience, which  so many others across the country share, how can he  say otherwise?

Rishi Sunak: I am very sorry to hear about the experience of the hon. Lady’s constituent, and I am sure she will be raising it with the local NHS trust as well. The NHS is, of course, recovering from a difficult two years, but it has received considerable backing from  this Government, including record investment, as was acknowledged by the NHS chief executive officer just the other week, and a plan to improve productivity in the future. We have invested in 5,000 new beds over the last year and more ambulances. All of that is contributing to lower waiting times, waiting lists coming down and an improved A&E performance over the last year.

Angela Richardson: The people of the eastern villages of Guildford—the Clandons, the Horsleys, Effingham, Ripley, Send and Ockham—have had enough. Unwanted development and villages taken out of the green belt without promised infrastructure is why I have been calling for an immediate review of the local plan for the last three years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that Labour’s promise of concreting over the green belt, even against the wishes of local MPs, would simply add insult to injury?

Rishi Sunak: Unlike both the Liberal Democrats and the Labour party, who believe in top-down targets that decimate the green belt, we believe in local people having a say over their local communities. That is why we are committed to protecting and enhancing the green belt. The national planning policy includes strong protections to safeguard this important land. I note that my hon. Friend’s local plan is currently under review by the council, which has indicated that it will be updating it, and I hope my hon. Friend and her constituents engage with that process to help shape Guildford for future generations.

Mark Hendrick: The EU High Representative for foreign policy, Josep Borrell, said on Monday that Israel is provoking famine in Gaza and using starvation as a weapon of war. President Biden has said that there should be no attack on Rafah without a plan to ensure the safety of the  more than 1 million people living there. Does the Prime Minister agree with High Representative Borrell and President Biden? Because I do, and we need a ceasefire. If he does agree, will he say so here in the Chamber today?

Rishi Sunak: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have explained to the Opposition repeatedly that the findings from the Integrated Food Security Phase Classification initiative are gravely concerning. It is clear that the status quo is unsustainable, and we need urgent action now to avoid a famine. The UK is doing all it can to get more aid in and prevent a worsening crisis. Two thousand tonnes of UK-funded food aid, including flour and hot meals, is being distributed by the World Food Programme in Gaza today, as we speak, and it is enough to feed more than 275,000 people. We will continue to do everything we can to alleviate the suffering that people are experiencing.

Herefordshire Council: Children’s Services

Bill Wiggin: Whether the Government plan to intervene in the running of children’s services by Herefordshire Council.

Rishi Sunak: The Department for Education is mounting a significant intervention in Herefordshire’s children’s services, including expert improvement advice, a commissioner with statutory powers to direct the council, and a two-year improvement partnership with Leeds. I can assure my hon. Friend that the Department is closely monitoring the council’s progress.

Bill Wiggin: I thank my right hon. Friend for taking this terrible situation so seriously. The permanent secretary at the Department for Education visited Hereford recently, so he will know that the new Conservative council is trying to mend the damage done by the previous Green and independent authority to far too many young people and their families. As a father, does my right hon. Friend agree that progress is still far too slow? Will he meet me to discuss what more we can do?

Rishi Sunak: Like my hon. Friend, I am concerned to hear that children in Herefordshire are not receiving the level of service that they should expect. I know that Ministers have revisited the commissioner’s latest report, and while some improvements have been made, I agree that it is very clear that the pace of change is not what it should be. My hon. Friend has been right to campaign tirelessly on this. I assure him that Ministers continue to hold the local authority to account, but I will be happy to meet with him to discuss his concerns further.

Engagements

Mohammad Yasin: Bedford renal unit is closed until further notice while investigations into the water treatment unit are carried out. This is a major incident for the nearly 100 patients in Bedford whose lives are now severely disrupted by the need to travel around 50 miles up to four times a week to access lifesaving kidney dialysis. Will the Prime Minister commit all the necessary resources needed by East and North Hertfordshire NHS Trust renal services to urgently fix this major issue?

Rishi Sunak: I am sorry to hear about that specific issue in the renal unit. The hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not being familiar with the details, but I will make sure that the Department looks into it and that the NHS is provided with all the support that it needs to rectify the situation.

Liam Fox: Tomorrow is World Down Syndrome Day. We have made huge innovative strides in this country, with the unanimous passing in this House of the Down Syndrome Act 2022 and initiatives such as yours, Mr Speaker, to provide work placements here in the Palace of Westminster for people with Down syndrome. However, there is an outstanding issue that we must deal with. The time limit on abortion in the UK is 24 weeks’ gestation, but due to an anomaly in the law, for Down syndrome it is 40 weeks —up to full term—which many Members may not understand. With cross-party support I will table an amendment to the Criminal Justice Bill to equalise the time limit in line with our disability and equality legislation. Surely, in the 21st century we cannot accept that people with Down syndrome are second-class citizens in our country. Will the Prime Minister support the change?

Rishi Sunak: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his dedicated work to pass the Down Syndrome Act. I thank him also for highlighting World Down Syndrome Day, and we will host a reception in No. 10 to mark the occasion. As he knows, when the grounds for abortion were amended, Parliament agreed that doctors were best placed to make those difficult decisions with women and their families. He also knows that it is a long-standing convention that it is for Parliament to decide whether to make any changes to the law on abortion. These issues have always been treated as an individual matter of conscience.

Hannah Bardell: Some of my Livingston constituents in Broxburn and Craigshill have the misfortune of living in houses built with reinforced autoclaved aerated concrete. Many cannot get insurance or mortgages, and one constituent told me very emotionally that he cannot even afford a survey. Will the Prime Minister arrange for his Ministers to meet me to discuss how his Government can fund local authorities and devolved Governments—which did not even exist when these houses were built—and give the support that was promised? We need action now.

Rishi Sunak: I will happily look into the issues that the hon. Lady raises, but in the first instance I am sure that that would be a question for the SNP Government in Scotland to answer, to ensure that they are providing for their constituents. We have a strong track record of investing in local communities right across Scotland with our levelling-up funding and investment partnerships. She will know that housing is a devolved area, but I will happily look into the issue.

Andrew Rosindell: The Prime Minister should be aware that the people of Romford are appalled by the catastrophic reign of the current Mayor of London. Does he agree that traditional boroughs such as Havering should have more independence  from City Hall? In the meantime, to save London, should we not sack Sadiq and elect Susan Hall as the next Mayor of our capital?

Rishi Sunak: I pay tribute to the hon. Member for his championing of his area and for his passion to preserve its character. Although there are no current plans to redraw the boundaries, I understand his desire, especially with London being run by the Labour Mayor. With nightlife decimated, crime increasing and the Mayor raising taxes on hard-working people by more than 8%, London can certainly do better. The only way for pride to be restored in London is with Susan Hall as its  new Mayor.

Dan Carden: Sunday was the second anniversary of P&O Ferries’ illegal sacking of 786 British seafarers. Despite what Ministers have said, P&O has faced no sanction, and this Government’s new code of practice on fire and rehire would not stop it happening again. This Parliament will be the worst on record for living standards, and real wages are still worth less than in 2008. After 14 years, why have this Government failed to deliver a better deal for workers across Britain?

Rishi Sunak: As the Chancellor recently pointed out, living standards are £1,700 higher in real terms than in 2010. If the hon. Gentleman wants to protect working people in this country, perhaps he should have a chat with his shadow Chancellor about her plans to impose £28 billion of tax rises on everyone in our country.

Sarah Atherton: After decades of a Labour MP, Wrexham was known as “spice town”. But not any more: in the last four years, we have become a city with a £160 million investment zone, £20 million from the towns fund and £23 million from the shared prosperity fund. We are soon to have the largest trading estate in Europe, with more jobs than jobseekers. We have secured the future of Hightown Barracks and Hollywood has boosted our football club! Does the Prime Minister agree that it is this Conservative MP and this Conservative Government who are delivering for Wrexham? [ “More!”]

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend has been an excellent campaigner for Wrexham, putting it on the map after years of decline under the Labour party. It is the heart of one of Wales’s investment zones, with our plan for towns helping to regenerate the local high street and improve public safety. I can tell my hon. Friend that with a great campaigner like herself, the next five years will only look brighter for Wrexham.

Ashley Dalton: Last week, the Prime Minister rightly called Conservative party donor Frank Hester’s comments about my right hon. Friend the Member for Hackney North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) racist. It has since emerged that Mr Hester has made comments that a group of Indian members of staff should
“Climb on the roof, like on the roof of the train”
and made reference to “Asian corner”. Does the Prime Minister agree with me that those comments are racist— yes or no?

Rishi Sunak: I addressed this last week, and the Minister for Women and Equalities addressed it just half an hour ago.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Father of the House.

Peter Bottomley: Mr Speaker, you and the Prime Minister will be welcome in the Arun district of my constituency, where developers are trying to build over every vineyard, horticultural nursery and piece of agricultural land. Will he point out that the last place to build homes is prime agricultural land, especially in an area where developers have enough permissions to meet the council’s targets for the next five years?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is right that sustainable development must be at the heart of our planning system. That is why we are committed to meeting the housing needs of our communities by building the right homes in the right places, making sure that everyone makes best use of brownfield land, conserving our countryside. That is also the point he makes, which is important. I have been crystal clear: we must protect agricultural land. Food security is incredibly important and we need our farmers to produce more Great British food.

Andrew Slaughter: We know the Prime Minister has received advice about the legality of the Israel-Gaza war, that he has had time to consider it, and that Governments can and do publish such advice. Will he tell the House what steps he is taking to act on that advice in reviewing UK arms sales, in supporting the proceedings of the International Court of Justice and International Criminal Court, and in exercising the UK’s vote at the UN Security Council?

Rishi Sunak: We continue to call for Israel to respect international humanitarian law and for civilians to be protected. Too many civilians have been killed and we want Israel to take greater care to limit its operations to military targets. Those are points that both I and the Foreign Secretary have made repeatedly to Prime Minister   Netanyahu. We have previously assessed that Israel is committed and capable of complying with international humanitarian law, and of course we always keep that under review.

Martin Vickers: The Prime Minister will be aware of plans by National Grid to build a network of 50-metre-high pylons through much of rural Lincolnshire. This is causing much consternation, particularly in rural villages. Can my right hon. Friend assure my residents that when Ministers finally consider the consultations that come forward from National Grid, they will give sympathetic consideration to putting some of the sections underground?

Rishi Sunak: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise the concerns of his constituents. He will recognise the balance we need to strike by making sure that we give our country the energy security it needs but doing it in a way that is respectful of the impact on local communities. I will make sure that Ministers take into account the concerns he raised and that all the views of local constituents are taken into account.

Tahir Ali: Given that the Prime Minister’s and his Government’s days are numbered and that they will soon be in opposition, will he use the small amount of time available to him to join 138 United Nations member states in recognising the state of Palestine?

Rishi Sunak: Our position has been consistently clear. We will recognise the state of Palestine when it makes the most beneficial sense for the overall peace process. Of course we are committed to an ultimate two-state solution, but in the here and now what we are calling for is an immediate, sustained humanitarian pause that would allow for the safe release of hostages, including British nationals, and would allow more aid to reach Gaza. We urge all sides to seize the opportunity, and continue negotiations to reach an agreement as soon as possible.

HMRC Self-Assessment Helpline

James Murray: (Urgent Question): To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make a statement on the Government’s decision to close the HMRC self-assessment helpline every year between April and September.

Lindsay Hoyle: You have good news, Minister.

Nigel Huddleston: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
I thank the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray), and others, for raising the important issue of HMRC’s customer services and its plans to provide better services for taxpayers.
As Members probably know, His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs has announced that it is halting planned changes to its helplines, but aims to encourage more taxpayers to self-serve online. It has listened to the feedback and recognises that more needs to be done to ensure that all taxpayer needs are met, while also encouraging those who can to make the transition to online services. Making the best use of online services allows HMRC to help more taxpayers, and to get the most out of every pound of taxpayers’ money by boosting productivity. HMRC helpline and webchat advisers will always be there for taxpayers who need support because they are vulnerable or digitally excluded, or have complex affairs. I recognise that such reassurances were not communicated clearly enough yesterday.
Of course, the pace of this change needs to match the public’s appetite for managing their tax affairs online. The changes in the self-assessment VAT and PAYE helplines announced by HMRC will therefore be halted while it engages with stakeholders, which means that the phone lines will remain open as usual. HMRC will now work with stakeholders—including me—while continuing to encourage customers to self-serve and gain access to the information that they need more quickly and easily by going online or to the HMRC app, which is available 24/7.

James Murray: I thank the Minister for his response, but the question that I am tempted to ask is, “Who on earth is running the Treasury?”
This morning, just after we had requested the urgent question, we found out that the Chancellor had told HMRC to “pause” this change. That is a U-turn of quite extraordinary speed and indignity, following HMRC’s announcement yesterday that it would be permanently closing its self-assessment helpline altogether for half the year, from April to September. This morning a Treasury source said
“ministers have halted this change immediately”,
implying that those Ministers had been taken by surprise by the announcement. Can the Minister tell us whether any Treasury Ministers had any involvement in the decision announced yesterday, or whether HMRC’s announcement was made without any ministerial involvement?
In announcing the closure of the helpline, HMRC’s second permanent secretary and deputy chief executive said that the changes would
“allow our helpline advisers to focus support where it is most needed—helping those with complex tax queries and those who are vulnerable and need extra support.”
Can the Minister confirm that HMRC’s plans to help those who are vulnerable and need extra support are now in tatters after the Chancellor’s chaotic U-turn? I note that reports of the Chancellor’s position refer to a “pause” of the change, rather than a scrapping of it altogether. Can the Minister confirm that the self-assessment helpline will now remain fully open this year? If this plan is merely paused, will HMRC still be looking at months-long periods of closure of the helpline in the future?
It is clear that yesterday’s announcement of the helpline’s closure came not as part of a comprehensive, orderly or effective plan to help customers to move online, but rather as a panicked response to the collapse of HMRC’s service levels to an all-time low; and it is clear from today’s chaotic U-turn that this Government are fundamentally unstable, and have given up on serious governing.

Nigel Huddleston: I am sure the hon. Member is aware that HMRC is a non-ministerial Department. Ministers set strategy and work closely with the Department on operations and communications. It is important to recognise that 67,000 people work for HMRC. They go to work every day and try to do the right thing, and it is important to recognise that many people there work very hard.
The overall strategy is absolutely right and I completely support it, and I will give the hon. Member an example of why we need to encourage and support the move to online services. In 2022-23, HMRC received more than 3 million calls on just three things that can easily be done digitally: resetting online passwords, getting one’s tax code and getting one’s national insurance number. That involves almost 500 people working full time to answer just those calls, and such resources could be redeployed. The hon. Member can be reassured that those who are not digitally savvy and those with difficulties will always be able to access services, including telephone services.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Treasury Committee.

Harriett Baldwin: May I thank the Financial Secretary and the Chancellor for listening to the howl of pain that came from ordinary taxpayers when they saw the announcement yesterday? Those who contact the HMRC hotline are the most law-abiding, tax paying people across this land.
This morning, the Treasury Committee has published more data showing that it is increasingly difficult to contact HMRC by telephone. While I fully endorse what the Minister has just said about the long-term strategy to move people online, it cannot be done by randomly shutting down HMRC’s telephone lines.
The Minister had an excellent digital track record in the private sector before he came into Parliament. May I urge him to use that experience to make this much more of a gradual transition for those law-abiding citizens of ours?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend and the Select Committee for their work in this area. I know that HMRC customer service has been an area of focus   for her and others for some time, and we appreciate the input. I recognise that she acknowledges the potential opportunities and the upside to encouraging more people to go online, but the point she makes is really important. HMRC has taken the feedback with good grace, because it is important that we move at the speed at which the public are willing to move. Of course, some people are not willing or able to move to purely online services.
I am sorry for not responding earlier to the hon. Member for Ealing North (James Murray) on whether the telephone lines will stay open. Yes, of course  they will.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Drew Hendry: This is absolute chaos. The proposal to permanently close the self-assessment helpline for half the year was truly half-baked and irresponsible, as were the planned restrictions to the VAT helpline. The reversal is welcome, but the fact that the announcement was made at all highlights the disconnect at the heart of HMRC’s customer operations. As the Federation of Small Businesses has pointed out,
“customer service levels are at an all-time low”—
a view backed up by the Public Accounts Committee. At a time when the Chancellor’s policies are fiscally dragging more people into PAYE, the proposal was typically tone deaf to people’s needs.
Fran Heathcote of the PCS union has said that
“the combination of low-pay and micro-management”
is “rife across the whole” of HMRC’s customer service department. The Minister said that HMRC is a non-ministerial Department, but we know that it has been told what to do by the Chancellor overnight. When did the Government get notice of the announcement? Was it a reaction to the Chancellor’s decision to cut HMRC’s budget by £1.6 billion next year? Will he now ensure that the cut is reversed and order HMRC to recruit more customer service staff, and will he now instruct HMRC to make the reversal permanent?

Nigel Huddleston: As I outlined a few moments ago, I think we can all appreciate that in order to serve customers, and particularly those who most need support, we need to ensure that those who do not need to go online have alternative channels—by the way, the customer service levels are higher in online channels—and the use of the app, which I encourage all individuals to use. Those who can go online will find a very effective and efficient service, so this is absolutely the right strategy and one that I completely and utterly support. We have also previously had a trial closure of the lines, and the report released yesterday showed that it worked quite well.
The hon. Gentleman also asked about redeployment. HMRC is proactive in notifying people who, for example, do not need to provide a self-assessment form. I think more than 1 million people were notified last year that they did not need to do so. Following other changes in Government policy, we have also communicated that those on high incomes—up to £150,000, for example—but do not have complex tax affairs do not need to provide a self-assessment return. There is a broad package  going on here to enhance and improve customer service, but we recognise that many people like and would prefer a telephone service.

Sarah Dines: Despite extensive Government investment in rural broadband in my constituency, there remains a lack of connectivity, with small businesses, the elderly and the vulnerable still having difficulty going fully online. What can the Minister do to ensure that nobody will be left behind in Derbyshire Dales?

Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend makes the really important point that there are still people in this country, including in her constituency, who are not digitally aware or who are digitally excluded for a variety of reasons. That is why an important part of our strategy is to ensure that those who are digitally excluded, and those who are vulnerable or have particularly complex affairs, can always reach a human being.

Tan Dhesi: This is another chaotic Government U-turn, with the Chancellor taking the decision this morning to scrap plans to close HMRC phone lines less than 24 hours after the measures were announced. A Treasury source admitted this morning that closing HMRC’s helplines would be to
“the detriment of the general public and the vulnerable who need access to the helplines to support them with tax matters. ”
This is part of a wider malaise within Tory broken Britain where many of my Slough constituents cannot speak to a doctor when they want to, cannot register for an NHS dentist and much worse besides. So why was this decision taken in the first place?

Nigel Huddleston: I mentioned in my opening comments—I will stress it again because it is important that nobody scaremongers about this—that it was never intended, and never would have been the case, that the vulnerable, the digitally excluded or those with complex affairs would be unable to access these services, even with the proposals set out yesterday. On that particular point, the hon. Gentleman is just wrong.

James Sunderland: I am grateful to the Minister for his statement, which I welcome. Last September, in this very place, I raised the issue of heavy fines being imposed on self-employed constituents for late submission of self-assessment forms, even though no moneys were owed. I met the Minister in post at the time, but will the current Minister please write to me with an update on progress?

Nigel Huddleston: I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter. I reiterate that there is a very good reason why HMRC’s structure and relationship with Government is as it is, because it would be inappropriate for Ministers to interfere with individual tax affairs. However, I would be more than happy to raise his point with HMRC and respectfully ask that it pays it due attention. Of course, the Government set broader policy.

Helen Morgan: As a former financial controller of a small business in a rural place, I have used those helplines extensively, not least in sorting out disputes when HMRC has got its data wrong. Given that our own experience is that the website’s  process is byzantine, that the waits on the phone lines are inordinately long, and that £36 billion of tax goes uncollected by HMRC every year, how can anyone have any confidence that the Treasury is working effectively?

Nigel Huddleston: Very simply, we have one of the lowest tax gaps reported in the world, at about 4.8%, precisely because of the clarity of the tax system and the efficiency of HMRC in gaining the tax that is owed. Of course there are customer service challenges, and I am having conversations with HMRC about that. HMRC is also held to account in the Chamber, the Treasury Select Committee and elsewhere, as appropriate. It  is important that we recognise that HMRC received 38 million telephone calls and 16 million pieces of correspondence in 2022-23. If it were a private sector business, we can see how it would make sense strategically to move, where appropriate, as much of that activity as possible online, where it can be dealt with more appropriately and often more quickly.

Caroline Nokes: The Women and Equalities Committee, which is currently carrying out an inquiry on the rights of older people, this week met Independent Age and a range of stakeholders in Andover. They made the point that older people need to be able to access all services on the telephone, as people who are disabled or have a visual impairment find online services difficult. To be able to communicate effectively, people who are hard of hearing need websites with a British Sign Language overlay. Independent Age and the stakeholders I met were horrified at yesterday’s announcement on the closure of the helpline.
What consultation has there been with my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Mims Davies), in her expanded role as Minister for Disabled People, on the potential impact of these changes? When Members of Parliament deal with HMRC on constituency casework, it now tries to push us into using the telephone rather than email. Can the Financial Secretary assure me that vulnerable people will still be able to use telephone services? Will he comment on the contradiction between how Members of Parliament and the public are dealt with by HMRC?

Nigel Huddleston: I assure my right hon. Friend that we are having live conversations with HMRC about how it communicates with Members of Parliament on behalf of our constituents. Some Members tell me that they would prefer a telephone call, whereas others would prefer email. It is important that we have both. I am more than happy to communicate views and opinions from across the Chamber on that point. I am well aware that one of the biggest areas of concern about yesterday’s announcement, and one of the reasons why the feedback has been so loud, is that vulnerable people, including those with disabilities, might not be helped. It was never the intention or the plan that such people would be unable to access online, webchat or other channels.

Tonia Antoniazzi: The Minister has spoken about members of the public who are willing and able to access services online. Members have to complete our own self-assessment form. I am willing and able, but I still need access to a telephone helpline. He said that 500 people are needed to answer the same  three questions, which obviously cannot be handled by the online system. Following this announcement, is he confident that HMRC has the digital tools necessary to cater for more than 12 million self-assessment taxpayers?

Nigel Huddleston: I need to correct the hon. Lady, as the vast majority of the points I raised could be handled online, including through the app. One of the things we must do is communicate far more clearly. A fair point has been raised in the Chamber today, and I will continue to discuss it with HMRC, because there are clearly some challenges with communicating what is available, where help exists and so on, but there is a wealth of information on the digital offerings, particularly the app, and I encourage people to adopt them, where possible. The hon. Lady makes a valid point that people who cannot adopt them will need other help, and we are listening.

Julian Lewis: It is clear that HMRC made a serious mistake, and the Government acted commendably quickly in intervening to put matters right. I am sure they will now take a close interest in what happens next. As a matter of policy, will the Minister ensure that, whatever the future holds, it will not be anything so sudden or brutal, and that there will be a trial period before anything so dramatic is implemented across the board?

Nigel Huddleston: As I mentioned a few moments ago, there has been a trial closure of telephone services. The recently reported results show that the trial worked quite well. As we heard overnight and are hearing again in the Chamber today, the important challenge is that the confidence behind that has not been effectively communicated. The reassurances that I personally received on what will happen to help those who are not able to access online services—including the disabled, those without digital access and those with particularly complex cases—were not communicated. That is important to making sure that, as HMRC moves forward and policy is developed, we move at a pace with which people are comfortable.

Sammy Wilson: I hope that HMRC’s screeching U-turn is a result of the Minister’s action. If it is, I congratulate him on stepping in so quickly. Does he agree that, at a time when more and more people are being dragged into complex tax returns because of fiscal drag, when 1 million people had their calls to HMRC unanswered in January and when a record number of people are putting in their tax returns late because they cannot get information, HMRC should not have adopted such a policy? Will the Minister give us an assurance that this is not temporary and that whatever help income tax payers require to pay their tax will be made available?

Nigel Huddleston: I give the right hon. Gentleman an assurance on the latter point. As I have outlined several times today, I think we can all recognise that the move to digital, where appropriate, will relieve the burden on the people answering telephone calls and on some other services, allowing them to deliver precisely the end goal that he describes. Simplifying the tax system is a goal of Government policy. I gave an example of people on high incomes with relatively simple tax affairs—those  who pay through PAYE, for example—and we are trying to remove as many of those people as possible from self-assessment. I completely understand the right hon. Gentleman’s points.

James Wild: Although decisions on individual tax cases are rightly managed independently by HMRC, political and public pressure saw this ridiculous decision squashed. What steps will Ministers take to improve the accountability and performance of HMRC?

Nigel Huddleston: There are a variety of channels and tools, including my ministerial oversight. The Treasury Select Committee and other bodies also play an important part. I am not suggesting in any way, shape or form that I am removing myself from responsibility for HMRC, as I have ministerial oversight. If colleagues have concerns, they can always raise them with me. It is my job to raise those concerns with HMRC.

Chris Stephens: I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I chair the Public and Commercial Services Union parliamentary group.
Does the Minister accept that one of the more disgraceful aspects of this episode is that neither the trade unions nor the staff appear to have been consulted prior to yesterday’s announcement? Does he accept that this is no way to conduct industrial relations or to deal with staff? How does he see yesterday’s announcement in the light of the Public Accounts Committee’s comments that the Department has to improve its ability to reach out to taxpayers and that it needs additional resources? Why are the Government now restricting customer access to the Department?

Nigel Huddleston: HMRC and I have heard and respect the views of the PAC and other bodies, including their recommendations and suggestions for improvement. Of course, many of these bodies suggest that the continuing move towards digital and online is an important part of that process. As I have said, I do not have day-to-day operational responsibility for HMRC, but I do have oversight. I proactively requested a meeting with the unions several weeks ago, and that is what I have tended to do in all my ministerial roles.

Christopher Chope: This is a welcome U-turn, but does my hon. Friend accept that one of the problems is HMRC’s chronic lack of productivity? Is that not made worse because so many people are working from home?

Nigel Huddleston: My hon. Friend is correct that a focus on productivity is key, and I can assure him that these are exactly the kinds of conversations that I am having. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury is leading a cross-Government review of productivity. HMRC staff are required to work in the office for 40% of the time. I have asked HMRC to assess and monitor the productivity of staff who are working from home versus staff working in the office, and there is very little difference. Because of the concern expressed by my hon. Friend and others, I will keep an eye on it.

Alistair Carmichael: The reprieve is welcome, but if we are to keep these helplines open, can we at least resource them properly and make them work? I spoke to a chartered accountant in my constituency this morning, and he tells me that when he recently phoned HMRC with a complex query on behalf of a client, it took 40 minutes to get an answer. When the phone was answered, there was an acknowledgment of the problem. He suggested that the answer might lie in his client’s wife’s data being incorrectly ordered, at which point he was told that the staff were allowed to handle only one case per call, and that he would have to hang up and phone back, with another 40-minute wait for an answer. Surely that is no way to treat a customer.

Nigel Huddleston: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for raising that point, and I am happy to raise it with HMRC.

Alison Thewliss: I am regularly contacted by constituents who have had poor services from HMRC, as I am sure many of my colleagues are. These people are pretty certain that they would still be waiting had they not got their MP involved. My constituent Mr McCall retired to care for his terminally ill wife in 2021, but has since been chased repeatedly by HMRC to provide a tax return for 2022-23. He does not use email and has described the diabolical experience he has had with the phone line; he waited 50 minutes for an automated voice, and the line then went dead. Does the Minister accept that that service level is not acceptable at all, and things must improve? Would he like to take the opportunity to apologise to Mr McCall for the distress that HMRC has caused him?

Nigel Huddleston: Yes, I am sorry to hear about those circumstances for the hon. Lady’s constituent. As I said, I have to be careful given the need to keep at arm’s length in individual cases, but she also raises a broader policy point. A lot of training and work goes on. I repeat that some 60,000 people work for HMRC, many of whom are dedicated, hard-working and well-trained individuals, and they often do a thankless job, but she makes a valid point, and I will happy raise that issue. I spoke incorrectly a few moments ago, so may I take the opportunity to correct what I said, Mr Speaker? HMRC staff are required to work in the office 60% of the time, not 40% of the time.

Wendy Chamberlain: The Government were forced to extend the state pensions top-ups through to April next year because of unacceptable delays on the Department for Work and Pensions/HMRC helpline for that issue. The Minister has mentioned that a review will take place; will that helpline be in its scope? It is a concern to many, many constituents.

Nigel Huddleston: As I say, I have ongoing engagement with HMRC. It is operationally independent, but I do have some oversight, and ministerial guidance is appropriate. I appreciate all the comments made by hon. Members today. These will be live conversations, and HMRC is listening to the conversations today. I will be happy to raise with it the points that she makes.

Jim Shannon: First, let me thank the Minister for a positive response, and for trying to solve the problems; we appreciate that. Constituents have told my office about their struggle to get through to HMRC on the phone lines. There is no doubt that people still rely on services that allow them to speak to an individual. That is so important, as it is for us  as MPs. We had 1 million calls unanswered in January alone, which illustrates clearly the problem that the Minister is trying to address. Does he not see that there must be an enhanced service for all of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, to ensure that all calls are answered and dealt with? The better option of a personal phone call is right, and we need a drastic change to be made.

Nigel Huddleston: It is important that HMRC commands respect—to a broad degree, it does—across the House and among our constituents, because that is how we can ensure that we comply with tax requirements. Where there is confusion, uncertainty or a valid question, it is important that people can get help, advice and support. For some people, it is appropriate to go online to get that, but that is not the case for everybody. As I said, the comments made today are very much appreciated. I suspect that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that, as  I have said many times, it is important that all of us encourage and support the digitisation of these services, and the adoption of the app by our constituents, because that will help ensure that the time available is focused on those who most need help and support.

Royal Assent

Lindsay Hoyle: I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that His Majesty has signified his Royal Assent to the following Acts:
Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Act 2024
National Insurance Contributions (Reduction in Rates) Act 2024
Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Act 2024
Bishop’s Stortford Cemetery Act 2024.

Hong Kong Security Legislation

Iain Duncan Smith: (Urgent Question): To ask the Foreign Secretary if he will make a statement on the security and human rights implications of Article 23 in Hong Kong.

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his urgent question. Yesterday, Hong Kong’s Legislative Council passed new national security legislation unanimously under article 23 of the Basic Law. The Bill, which rushed through the legislative process, and is likely incompatible with international human rights law, will come into force on Saturday. Since 2020, we have seen Hongkongers’ rights and freedoms deliberately eroded as a result of the Beijing-imposed national security law, and this law continues that pattern.
Yesterday, His Majesty’s Government made it clear that the law’s overall impact will be to further damage the rights and freedoms enjoyed throughout Hong Kong. It will enable the authorities to continue their clampdown on freedoms, including freedom of speech, assembly and the media. It will further entrench the culture of self-censorship dominating Hong Kong’s social and political landscape. It fails to provide certainty for international organisations, including diplomatic missions, operating there. Broad definitions will negatively affect those who live, work and do business there.
Although Britain recognises the right of all jurisdictions to implement national security legislation, Hong Kong is also required to ensure that laws align with international standards, rights and norms as set out in UN treaties, the Sino-British joint declaration and its Basic Law. Hong Kong is an international city. Respect for the rule of law, its high degree of autonomy and the independence of its well-respected institutions have always been critical to its success. The British Government have urged the Hong Kong authorities to respect rights and freedoms, uphold Hong Kong’s high degree of autonomy and the rule of law, and act in accordance with its international commitments and legal obligations.
Let me conclude by welcoming the contribution our growing Hong Kong diaspora make to life in the UK; they are safe to live here, and exercise the rights and freedoms that all other British residents enjoy. We will not tolerate any attempt by any foreign power to intimidate, harass or harm individuals or communities in the UK. This law has no effect in the UK, and we have no active extradition treaty with Hong Kong.

Iain Duncan Smith: I welcome the Government’s statement, but it does not go far enough. Article 23 allows sentences of up to 14 years’ imprisonment if an individual fails to disclose that another person indicated an “intention to commit treason”, which includes peaceful protest or voicing discontent. If a journalist discloses information deemed to be a “national secret”, they will be jailed for 10 years. Since the passage of the national security law in 2020, the people of Hong Kong have endured relentless oppression, in contravention of the Sino-British agreement, yet the UK has done very little to hold those responsible to account. I remind my right  hon. Friend that the United States, which did not sign that agreement, has sanctioned 42 people, including senior individuals, in Hong Kong, whereas the UK has sanctioned none.
I have two questions as a result. This legislation harmonises Hong Kong’s and China’s national security systems, with devastating consequences for human rights; it also changes business and legal arrangements. Last year, the US Government warned US businesses that they can no longer rely on the protection that the rule of English common law affords in Hong Kong. Why have the UK Government not done the same for our businesses? Secondly, we now know that Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office internal documents show that the Department paused targeted sanctions against Chinese officials in November 2023. One document states:
“FCDO has paused consideration of this work indefinitely”.
As one of the parliamentarians whom China has sanctioned, I must say that that is a terrible decision, and it flies in the face of the evidence. Will the Government publish those documents, and make a statement explaining why they no longer wish to sanction Chinese officials?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments, which I will deal with as best I can. He indicated just two or three of the defects in this appalling legislation. He was right to identify them. He did not ask me whether the legislation is in breach of the Sino-British joint declaration. In fact, it is not; the Hong Kong Government are legislating for themselves. The British Government declared in 2021 that China is in ongoing breach of the Sino-British joint declaration.
My right hon. Friend asked about the rule of English common law and the warnings given by the Government of the United States. The British business community is extremely experienced and well able to reach conclusions for itself, but if ever the British Government’s advice were sought, we would always give it. He talked about targeted sanctions. I know that he is sanctioned; I hope that he will bear that with the necessary fortitude. It is outrageous that he and others should be sanctioned in that way. We do not discuss our approach to sanctions on the Floor of the House, but my right hon. Friend may rest assured that we are keeping all such matters under regular review.

Nigel Evans: I call the shadow Foreign Secretary.

David Lammy: Hong Kong’s new national security law is the latest degradation of the rights and freedoms of Hong Kong. It is causing fear and unease not only to Hongkongers, but to UK and other foreign nationals living and working in Hong Kong, as well as international businesses and organisations operating there, and many outside Hong Kong. Article 23’s provisions apply to Hong Kong residents and businesses anywhere in the UK. We have seen where that can lead; there was the frankly appalling attack on a protester in Manchester in December 2022. What steps are the UK Government taking to counter the threat of transnational repression, especially towards the 160,000 Hongkongers who have come to the UK via the British national overseas passport route? Many will feel unsafe and unprotected, and are denied access even to their own  pensions. I ask on their behalf, does the Minister accept that the law not only “undermines” the legally binding Sino-British joint declaration, as the Foreign Secretary put it, but represents a clear breach? If so, will he say that to his Chinese counterparts?
The Minister says that he does not talk about sanctions, but it is of concern that although the US thinks sanctions are appropriate, the UK Government seem to be sitting on their hands. In the constant absence of the Foreign Secretary, can I ask the Minister whether the Foreign Secretary accepts that his “golden era” with China was a strategic mistake that undermined British influence over Hong Kong, set us on a rodeo of inconsistency towards China and failed to stand up for the UK’s national security interests? Can we expect the Foreign Secretary to deliver the strong, clear-eyed and consistent approach that is needed?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the shadow Foreign Secretary for his comments. I agree entirely with what he said about article 23. He chides me for not saying more on the issue of sanctions. The point I was making—I hope that he will accept that this is common to both parties when in government—is that we do not discuss our application or consideration of sanctions, or sanctions policy, on the Floor of the House, but when we feel it is necessary to act, we certainly do.
The right hon. Gentleman asks me about the view of the Foreign Secretary, given his long career and understanding of China from his time as Prime Minister. The Foreign Secretary has spoken out very clearly on the change that has taken place since he was Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman asks me whether the legislation is a breach of the Sino-British joint declaration; as I have said, we decided in 2021 that China was in ongoing breach of that. On the issue of whether it is a breach of international law, the Bill specifically says that it will be compliant with international law. I suspect that the proof of the pudding will be in the eating.

Julian Lewis: The shadow Foreign Secretary slightly stole my script about the “golden era” of Sino-British relations trumpeted by then Prime Minister Cameron. While the Minister says that things have changed since then, one thing has not changed: communist China was a totalitarian state then, and it is a totalitarian state now. Is it not about time that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office learned that lesson?

Andrew Mitchell: My right hon. Friend speaks with great experience on these matters from his time on the Intelligence and Security Committee. I agree with him about the nature of China. The question was whether China would respect the Sino-British joint declaration and recognise the uniquely brilliant features of Hong Kong as an international trading city. It is a matter of great regret that politics have trumped economics in that respect, as perhaps it always will in the case of China.

Nigel Evans: I call the Scottish National party spokesperson.

Martin Docherty: I thank the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) for securing the urgent   question. Let me try to get some answers from the Government about a response to what communist China has done, and critically what we can do in the UK about Confucius Institutes. Back in May 2022, the Open University bragged about being the first online Confucius Institute. Until 2023, the Government were allocating at least £27 million to Mandarin-language teaching, channelled through university-based Confucius Institutes. Will the Minister confirm that that has stopped? There is some confusion about that.
In relation to the comments made by the shadow Foreign Secretary, the Governments of countries such as the United States and others believe that sanctions are possible. The Netherlands and Germany have discouraged their universities from engaging with the Confucius Institutes; Sweden has gone as far as I would, by banning them. On providing answers, there are practical things that the United Kingdom can do about what is going on in Hong Kong. Will the Government consider ending the rights of Confucius Institutes in the UK? And will the Minister clarify the Government’s allocation of funding to Mandarin-language teaching through those institutes?

Andrew Mitchell: We are very much aware of the Confucius Institutes and the way in which they operate. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we always keep such matters under review. If we have any changes to make to what we are doing, we will be sure to announce them in the House.

Sarah Champion: There is no doubt that article 23 will have a chilling effect on freedom and human rights in Hong Kong. It is designed to further stifle all criticism of the Chinese regime and its policies, both inside and outside Hong Kong. Given the number of UK dual nationals in Hong Kong, what plans do the Government have to protect UK citizens from political persecution by China, both here and in Hong Kong? Will the Minister look again at extending the BNO passport scheme to children born before 1997?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the Chair of the International Development Committee for her comments. As she knows, we created the British national overseas route in 2020, which creates a pathway to permanent citizenship for British national overseas passport holders. It is working extremely well. Of course, we always keep it under review, but we have no current plans to change it.

Tobias Ellwood: It was supposed to be “one country, two systems”, but that has clearly disappeared. The bigger picture is that it is increasingly clear that China is openly pursuing a competing interpretation of the international rules-based order. Nowhere is that more evident than in Hong Kong. The independence of the judiciary has disappeared, along with freedom of speech and of the press. Hong Kong’s own democratic structures have been severely challenged and eroded. The new national security legislation will see the introduction of closed-door trials, detention for up to 16 days without charge, and the lowering of the bar of when life sentences can be imposed. I believe my right hon. Friend the Minister has business experience in Hong Kong, so what impact does he think these   new draconian measures will have on the international community doing business with Hong Kong in the future?

Andrew Mitchell: I thank the former Chair of the Defence Committee for his question. During my business career, I was in and out of Hong Kong very regularly. It is quite extraordinary how Hong Kong’s brilliant pre-eminence in business is being undermined by this legislation and, indeed, by much other legislation and acts by the Chinese Government. Hong Kong was built on independent institutions, a high degree of autonomy and openness to the world. All those things help to increase the economic activity, the living standards and the wealth of a country or a city, and it is deeply regrettable that this does not appear to be recognised by the Government of China.

Layla Moran: This is yet another nail in the coffin of Hong Kong democracy, and I cannot believe that we are here yet again talking about the matter. My thoughts are with the families of Hongkongers who are here. They must be looking at this and wondering what it means for them. The Trade (Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership) Bill was passed in this place yesterday, and, given that China is next in line to join, we did not get a cast-iron assurance during the debate that Britain would stop it from joining the CPTPP. In his role as Foreign Minister, would the right hon. Gentleman care to give that assurance now? Should China be joining the CPTPP while it is doing things such as this?

Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Lady is an extremely experienced parliamentarian and knows that I will not add to what my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Business and Trade said here yesterday. She did, however, talk about the threats to citizens in Hong Kong and here. I will add to what I said earlier that we suspended our extradition treaty with Hong Kong in 2020, and that was absolutely the right thing to do.

Christopher Chope: Why are the Government continuing with their policy of continuous appeasement of China?

Andrew Mitchell: I do not recognise the point that my hon. Friend makes. We have relations with many regimes whose values and views we do not share. That is the nature of international diplomacy and international business. None the less, I can assure him that British Ministers are forthright in their interactions with their Chinese counterparts, as he would expect.

Barry Sheerman: I have some sympathy for the Minister, because I think he shares my sense of shame. I was one of the parliamentary delegations that went to Hong Kong after the one country, two systems deal went through. Our job as parliamentarians was to find out what local people thought of the agreement. I can remember these all-party groups assuring the people of Hong Kong that they would be safe and secure in their democracy and that it would not be challenged. What the Minister says is not very encouraging. This is not just a totalitarian, communist dictatorship, but a ruthless dictatorship. There are sanctions  that we could be taking. Some of us in the House have begged the Government to do an audit of the extent of Chinese influence in this country, including how many companies they have taken over. How big is their influence? It is massive. The whole of the electrical distribution in London and the south-east is directly owned by a Chinese company. Surely we can take real sanctions against that country, which has gone back on everything it promised over Hong Kong.

Andrew Mitchell: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening sympathy and support, which is always very welcome. In respect of the audit of Chinese involvement, much of that work is effectively done by brilliant British investigative journalists. He will have read, as I have, many of the reports that they have published. It is one of the differences between China and Britain: we have an open, free and democratic system, which enables us to scrutinise and pursue these matters in a way that is not possible in China.

Edward Timpson: The message that this legislation sends out is that political control trumps all else, including the economy. Bearing that in mind, what assessment has the deputy Foreign Secretary made of this national security law both in relation to economic stability, competitiveness and performance in the city of Hong Kong, not least in relation to the confidence of foreign investors, and the potential impact on social cohesion?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. and learned Friend makes an extremely shrewd point. The impact of this legislation is, of course, devastating in the areas that he identifies. This is not legislation that is scrutinised in the way that we understand legislation to be scrutinised. It is not subject to consultation or scrutiny by genuinely democratically elected Members, but that is merely one of the defects that has been identified during this session.

Alistair Carmichael: The all-party parliamentary group on Hong Kong, which I chair, heard very powerful testimony this morning from a young Hongkonger who had been a political prisoner in Hong Kong. We will now see more people enduring the indignity of political imprisonment, and the BNO passport visa can be withheld on the basis of the applicant having been in prison. Surely that is something that must be reviewed.

Andrew Mitchell: That is not a matter, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, only for us. But he is right in his fundamental understanding, as he has set out, about the breach of the law that is going on. As he might have seen, Volker Türk, the UN human rights lead, has said that it looks, on the face of it, incompatible with international humanitarian law.

Tom Randall: Having also been at the Hong Kong all-party group meeting this morning, I, too, heard the powerful testimony given by those pro-democracy activists who have suffered so much in advocating their cause.
I welcome my right hon. Friend’s statement. In his opening, he said that the law does not apply here; of course it does not, but that is not how the Chinese see it.  It is for them an extraterritorial law. It outlaws external interference that intends to interfere in Hong Kong affairs, bans the work of non-governmental organisations advocating for human rights and civil liberties and might also affect those Hongkongers in the UK who are working in the UK civil service or the UK armed forces. Can my right hon. Friend assure me that active discussions are happening across government, with the Home Office, the Ministry of Defence and others, to ensure that Hongkongers living in the UK have the protections necessary against any future Chinese prosecution?

Andrew Mitchell: My hon. Friend knows a great deal about these matters and speaks with great wisdom on them. He is right to speculate that these discussions are taking place across government. They take place through formal mechanisms most of the time. But I suspect that he is concerned about the possible misuse of Interpol, which is an issue that has been raised, and which we take extremely seriously in the requirement to protect individual rights and uphold article 3 of Interpol’s constitution. He may rest assured that we continue to watch over these matters with all possible concern and rigour.

Jim Shannon: I thank the Minister, as always, for his answers. As has been stated today, the action is in clear breach of the Sino-British joint declaration and of human rights laws, in which I and others in this House take a particular interest. I have heard clearly what the Minister has said, but a number of concerned Asian constituents in my area have contacted me about the message that this sends to those who have left the Chinese regime. They raise concerns about the protection of those who live and work here. If we cannot hold the Chinese to their word, we have to ask whether anyone is safe. What message does the Minister have for my constituents?

Andrew Mitchell: At the end of his interesting contribution, the hon. Gentleman asked a philosophical question, and I think he seeks a rhetorical answer. By the very way in which he expressed his question he made clear precisely what the dangers are. We have seen throughout the trial of Jimmy Lai that this is a political prosecution. Once again, we call for his immediate release. Finally, the hon. Gentleman talked about this being a breach of the Sino-British joint declaration, a point that was made earlier. As the Hong Kong Government are legislating for themselves, it may or may not be a breach technically, but we have been perfectly clear since 2021 that China is in ongoing breach of the declaration.

Nigel Evans: I thank the Minister for responding to the urgent question and the questions of others present.

Bills Presented

Tobacco and Vapes Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Victoria Atkins, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Oliver Dowden, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary James Cleverly, Secretary Gillian Keegan, Secretary Chris Heaton-Harris, Secretary Alister Jack, Secretary David T. C. Davies, Michael Tomlinson, Andrea Leadsom  and Gareth Davies, presented a Bill to make provision about the supply of tobacco, vapes and other products, including provision prohibiting the sale of tobacco to people born on or after 1 January 2009; and to enable product requirements to be imposed in connection with tobacco, vapes and other products.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed (Bill 189) with explanatory notes (Bill 189-EN).

Private Parking (Regulator) Bill

Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Emma Hardy presented a Bill to establish a regulator of privately-owned car parks; to make provision about the powers and duties of that regulator; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 14 June, and to be printed (Bill 185).

Standards in Public Life (Codes of Conduct)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Debbie Abrahams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a statutory code of conduct for Ministers of the Crown; for a statutory code of conduct for Members of the House of Commons and Members of the House of Lords; for a statutory code of conduct for councillors in England; and for connected purposes.
We are here today in the mother of Parliaments: a place that is steeped in our country’s history, from passing Acts of Union to overthrowing a tyrannical monarch; a place that Chartists and suffragettes fought for the right to be in; and a place that has approved our country’s most important human rights and equality legislation. However, many people across our great country and nation states feel that the MPs and Ministers who sit in the UK Parliament and make new laws on their behalf no longer represent them. People across the country feel that while they play by the rules, too often too many of us do not. They are engaged every five years or so in a general election, but rarely in between. While they struggle to make ends meet, public money is treated by some as a personal fiefdom to bestow on their chums and benefactors.
When people lose faith in democracy, they seek political extremes. Polling from the Institute for Government recently showed that two thirds of our constituents said that
“they do not think the current government behaves to high ethical standards”.
Likewise, polling from the UK Anti-Corruption Coalition found that two thirds of voters believe that UK politics is becoming more corrupt. Our democracy is fragile, and the reputation of those of us in this place as being in it for ourselves will, if not tackled, lay the groundwork for some of the country’s most abhorrent forces. That is what I seek to address in the Bill. While I am proud to be a Labour MP, the Bill is not party political. The reality is that when one party is seen as behaving in a way that lacks integrity, it affects not just that party but the reputation of politicians on both sides.
In the context of the cost of living crisis and the flailing economy, some might describe attempts at political reform as somehow ephemeral, but that misunderstands that our political and economic crises are two sides of the same coin. The failure to provide political stability has deterred the private sector investment that we need to supercharge economic growth. Taxpayers’ money is being wasted on scandals as wide-ranging as Carillion, Greensill and personal protective equipment procurement, precisely because the seven principles of public life, commonly referred to as the Nolan principles—selflessness, honesty, integrity, leadership, objectivity, accountability and openness—are not at the heart of public life.
My Bill sets out proposals to address the current gaps in achieving those principles by defining what is needed to promote, adopt and regulate the expected standards of behaviour of MPs, Ministers and councillors. First, my Bill would put the ministerial and Members’ codes   of conduct on to a statutory footing, and introduce a national statutory code of conduct for local councillors. Secondly, it would establish a new commissioner for ministerial standards: a fully independent office protected by statute. Thirdly, to mirror that arrangement for MPs, it proposes that the office of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, which currently oversees the code of conduct for MPs, is established as an independent statutory office. Finally, it would establish a new ethics commission to review how our parliamentary system can develop to reflect the modern, inclusive, empowering democracy that we want to become in the 21st century and beyond.
I will take each measure in turn. My Bill proposes that the ministerial code, including the seven Nolan principles, be put on to the statute book. That would bring us in line with the code in Northern Ireland and add both greater credibility to, and awareness of, the code. This measure has received cross-party support. Even the former Chancellor George Osborne told the “Leading” podcast that
“it would be a great…agenda to put the ministerial code on a statutory footing”.
I wholeheartedly agree, and that is what my Bill would do. It is absolutely right that the Nolan principles, which are currently guiding principles, would also be codified. Right honourable and honourable and lay colleagues on the Committee on Standards have stated:
“Though the Independent Adviser has not, historically, launched investigations into breaches of process or constitutional principle, neither the code nor the Adviser’s terms of reference make this clear.”
My Bill would address that lack of clarity by empowering the new commissioner for ministerial standards to act independently from the Prime Minister and launch their own investigations into allegations of breaches of the code and/or the Nolan principles.
As an independent and statutory office, the office of the new commissioner for ministerial standards would also be protected from the vagaries or displeasures of Prime Ministers. We have very recently seen prominent examples of decisions not to ask the current adviser on ministerial standards to conduct investigations—decisions made by the Prime Minister on the whims of the day. The fact that in the last four years Parliament has seen two holders of the role resign indicates the tensions   regarding those decisions. I know that this measure also enjoys deep and widespread support, including from the Institute for Government.
Furthermore, my Bill proposes that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards should also become a statutory office and that, under its purview, in addition to Members being investigated for potential breaches of code of conduct rules, Members could be investigated for serious and serial breaches of the Nolan principles. Paragraph 17 of the Members’ code expressly prohibits the commissioner from investigating allegations solely about breaches of the seven principles of public life.
Reform of our politics also needs to extend to town halls across the country. We all know from our constituencies that the vast majority of councillors work tirelessly trying to make a difference in their communities, but unfortunately a minority use their positions for their own purposes and threaten our democracy as a result. My Bill would also apply to local councillors, who are often a member of the public’s first contact with an elected official. If we rightly want to empower councils and communities to do more, and because, as US Congress Speaker Tip O’Neill once said, “All politics is local”, we must strengthen codes of conduct in local government. My Bill proposes a standardised national councillor code of conduct, which includes the Nolan principles and is accompanied by a statutory accountability system.
Finally, I turn to how we address the issue that I raised at the beginning of my speech: the disengagement of people from the political process and the dangerous decline of our democracy. My Bill would set up an independent ethics commission of constitutional and legal experts to advise Parliament on system-wide reforms. The ethics commission would work alongside a citizens assembly to come up with recommendations to restore confidence and rebuild engagement in our political system, securing our democratic future. I urge Members on both sides to support my Bill, to strengthen our standards in public life and to restore the public’s trust in us as their elected representatives in Parliament.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Debbie Abrahams, Dr Dan Poulter, Layla Moran and Caroline Lucas present the Bill.
Debbie Abrahams accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 26 April, and to be printed (Bill 188).

Point of Order

Yasmin Qureshi: On a point of order, Mr Deputy Speaker. I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on dentistry and oral health.
When launching the NHS dentistry recovery plan exactly six weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care repeatedly assured the House that the plan was backed by £200 million of new funding.  She said:
“There is £200 million on top of the £3 billion that we already spend on NHS dentistry in England.”
She made that very clear, adding:
“this is additional money. I have prioritised dentistry across the board, but this is £200 million of additional money—in addition to the £3 billion that we spend in England.”—[Official Report, 7 February 2024; Vol. 745, c. 264-66.]
We were all therefore very surprised to hear the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom), explain to the Health and Social Care Committee yesterday that the plan to deal with the crisis in NHS dentistry was not in fact backed by any additional investment. She explained that it was all coming out of the £3 billion that is currently so underspent.
As those two statements stand in direct contradiction with one another, I fear that either the Secretary of State or the Minister may have inadvertently misled the House. As we celebrate World Oral Health Day, I hope that you may be able to advise me, Mr Deputy Speaker, on how we can seek clarity on this issue and have the record corrected on the Floor of the House.

Nigel Evans: I thank the hon. Member for her point of order and for giving forward notice of it. She will know that Ministers are responsible for the accuracy of what they say in the House, whether in the Chamber or before Select Committees. Although it is not a matter for the Chair, those on the Treasury Bench will have heard her concerns, and if the Minister or the Secretary of State thinks that a correction is necessary, I am sure that one will be forthcoming.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill

Second Reading
[Relevant document: Third Report of the Business and Trade Committee, Post office and Horizon redress: Instruction to deliver, HC477.]

Kemi Badenoch: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I am pleased to present the Bill for its Second Reading. It will quash the convictions of those affected by the Post Office Horizon scandal in England and Wales—one of the greatest miscarriages of justice in our nation’s history. The legislation will clear the names of sub-postmasters whose lives were ruined because of the Horizon scandal: those wrongly convicted of or cautioned for offences of false accounting, theft and fraud, all because of a faulty IT system that the Post Office had implemented.
Instead of listening to whistleblowers such as Alan Bates when they raised concerns, the Post Office viciously pursued them for the shortfalls. Some were suspended or dismissed; hundreds were prosecuted, convicted and imprisoned; others were harried as thieves by their local communities. Several were driven to suicide. The Government cannot turn back the clock or undo the damage that has been done, but we will seek to right the wrongs of the past as best we can by restoring people’s good names and ensuring that those who have been subject to this tragic miscarriage of justice receive fair and full redress. The Bill represents a crucial step in delivering that.

Ian Paisley Jnr: The whole House appreciates the efforts that the Government are making to rectify this problem at last, but I appeal to them to listen to the cross-party representations made from both sides in this House and all sides in Northern Ireland, including by the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister for Northern Ireland, who have appealed for the fewer than 30 people in Northern Ireland who have been affected by the scandal to be included in the Bill.

Kemi Badenoch: We are working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive. We have carefully considered the territorial extent of each piece of legislation, and we are rigorous in our commitment to devolution. The hon. Gentleman should be assured of the amount of work that is taking place to ensure that we get the Bill done properly in a way that will not have unintended consequences. I thank him for that point.
This new legislation will quash all convictions that meet the clear and objective conditions laid out in it. We recognise that postmasters have suffered too much for far too long, which is why convictions will be quashed automatically when the Bill receives Royal Assent, removing the need for people to apply to have their conviction overturned.

Jeremy Wright: I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. I understand entirely why the Bill is necessary.  She will agree that it is important that we do not, through the Bill, set any precedent for the interference of this House in individual convictions, unless there are exceptional circumstances such as these. That means that the Bill must be tightly drafted. At the moment, condition E—the last of the conditions that she has mentioned—is that
“at the time of the alleged offence, the Horizon system was being used for the purposes of the post office business.”
Why is that not phrased differently to say that Horizon-based evidence was presented in the case against the person convicted? There is a material difference between those two things. I just seek to understand why she has chosen that formulation rather than the alternative.

Kemi Badenoch: My right hon. and learned Friend makes a good point about the final condition in the Bill. That is something that we considered, but it would likely have required a case-by-case, file-by-file assessment of each prosecution. That would have added significant time and complexity, which is what our solution avoids. One thing that I have been keen to emphasise is that speed and pace are critical. This has taken far longer than I would have wanted, and I would not have gone for a solution that would have impeded this and created complications.

Liam Byrne: I put on the record my thanks to and commendations for the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for the way in which he has approached the groundwork for the Bill.
Among those excluded from the scope of the Bill are those who went to the Court of Appeal and lost their case, or were not given leave to appeal to the Court. What we now know would have been quite useful in many of those cases. Should we enlarge the scope of the Bill to include those who lost their case at the Court of Appeal or were not given leave to appeal in the first place, as many of them may well be truly innocent?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that point. That is also something that we considered carefully. It is part of the trade-off that we had to make in doing something unprecedented: Parliament overturning convictions. We respect the judgment of the Court of Appeal—it has gone to an appellate judge. We are willing to consider some of those cases individually just to ensure that nothing has been missed, but the Bill has been drafted in consultation with the Crown Prosecution Service and the judiciary. We want to ensure that we are bringing everyone with us. Concerns such as his have been raised, but this is more or less the consensus that we think will get the Bill done, and allow redress, as quickly as possible.

David Davis: I will elaborate on this point further when I speak—hopefully, if I catch Mr Deputy Speaker’s eye—but there is already data about the cases that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) referred to, those that are outside the Horizon case itself but were attempting to get themselves exonerated on the basis of  other data. As far as I can see, they failed precisely because they were not part of the Horizon case, so I ask the Secretary of State to return to this issue before Report and look at whether we can solve that problem.

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my right hon. Friend for that intervention. That is something we can look at again at further stages of the Bill. We understand the issue that hon. Members are trying to resolve, and agree with them that we need to make sure that everybody who deserves justice gets justice, but we also have to be careful to make sure that we are not exonerating people who we know for a fact have committed crimes.

Mary Robinson: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way, and I commend her work and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), not only in recognising the plight of these people and putting in place compensation for their suffering, but in ensuring that these criminal convictions are expunged from their record. It is really important for these people that they regain their standing within their communities.
As my right hon. Friend has rightly said, so many of these whistleblowers were failed by the current law: the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998. It is really vital that we not only put that right, but have a good look at the law again. I know that a framework review is going on, and have spoken to my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend about what more can be done. I have tabled a whistleblowing Bill that will sort this problem out. It lands within the Department for Business and Trade—it is something that is within my right hon. Friend’s gift. Will she support my private Member’s Bill on Friday?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for all the work she does in chairing the all-party parliamentary group for whistleblowing. She is right that this issue needs consideration, and we are going to look again at the whistleblowing framework—it is something that comes up time and time again in many respects. I will not comment yet on her private Member’s Bill, because I have not seen it, but I thank her for all her work on this issue.

Kevan Jones: I welcome this Bill. I know that it is groundbreaking and possibly sets some nerves off with the judiciary, but I think the judiciary need to look at themselves and how they have dealt with some of these cases.
On the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) raised, a small number of cases are not within the scope of the Bill. I perfectly understand why, but we have to get those cases looked at again, because evidence has come out in the Sir Wyn Williams inquiry that was not available at the time. Will the Secretary of State commit to at least sit down with the judiciary to look at these cases and emphasise the fact that there is new information, and that responsibility for some of this injustice has got to lie with the justice system?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The courts dealt very swiftly with the cases before them—perhaps a bit too swiftly. That is why the sub-postmasters suffered so many miscarriages of justice, and it is right that we make their exoneration   as simple and quick as possible, so while my priority is passing this Bill for the bulk of the people who have suffered, that does not mean we will not be able to look at other scenarios later and see if we can find solutions where we genuinely believe that there has been a miscarriage of justice. That is not for me to do at the Dispatch Box—it will not be up to Ministers. There will be caseworkers who will carry out that work, but we have to be careful to make sure that we are exonerating the right cohort.

Kevan Jones: I hear what the Secretary of State says, but I would just say to her that this is a small number of people and they have to be looked at. Can I ask that she shows the same zeal that her hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) has shown in his approach to this process? We need a commitment, not to get these cases sorted today—I accept that the Secretary of State cannot do that—but that the Department will look at them. I think that will send quite a strong message out to people.

Kemi Badenoch: The Department can always do that. This is something that we believe is so critical in order to make sure everybody gets the justice they deserve, and we need to make sure that we carry out the process in such a way that everyone has confidence in it. We can continue to look at cases and see if there are other solutions, but as the right hon. Gentleman has rightly said, that will be outside the scope of this Bill.

Bob Neill: I am very grateful to the Secretary of State for giving way, and I also pay tribute to the exceptional work of my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and the way in which he has engaged in what is a sensitive issue, not least constitutionally. Does my right hon. Friend accept that it is not ideal under any circumstance for this House to trespass upon the legitimate preserves of the independent courts? It should only do so under the most exceptional circumstances. There is a case that this is one of those instances, but while we can legitimately criticise failings in the criminal justice system—such as in disclosure, which is part of the system—it is important that we do not get into the territory of impugning the individual decisions of judges made in good faith on the evidence properly before them.
One thing we could do to emphasise the exceptional nature of the Bill would be to introduce a sunset clause, so that at an appropriate time when the Bill has served its purpose—perhaps some way in the future, once those who need to be found and contacted have been able to come forward and have their convictions quashed— it would no longer be the constitutional anomaly that it might otherwise be if it stayed on the statute book indefinitely.

Kemi Badenoch: I am very happy to consider a sunset clause. My hon. and learned Friend makes a very good point, and I really appreciate the fact that he can see the tightrope that we are walking: getting justice for postmasters while not interfering with judicial independence.

Robert Buckland: I think it is important that we emphasise the wholly exceptional nature of this legislation, but we are dealing with wholly  exceptional circumstances—we hope. The point about disclosure is one that I cannot make strongly enough, and we have to look again at our presumptions about machines and what they produce when it comes to criminal litigation.
Can I press my right hon. Friend to reiterate the wholly exceptional nature of this legislation? I think we need to be careful when it comes to a sunset clause, because we do not want to end up frustrating the purpose of the Bill, which is to deal with the hundreds of people who have lost faith in the system and might be difficult to track down and identify. I am not particularly in favour of a sunset clause, but we do need to emphasise the exceptional nature of this legislation.

Kemi Badenoch: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for his intervention. I am very happy to emphasise that, and will do so again later in my speech. I do enjoy it when we have two lawyers who disagree on a particular point; I will be taking this as their application to join the Bill Committee.
The Bill includes a duty on the Government to take all reasonable steps to identify convictions that have been quashed. It also creates a duty to notify the original convicting court, so that records can be updated and people’s good names can be restored. Other records, such as police records, will be amended in response. The Bill makes provision for records of cautions for relevant offences relating to this scandal to be deleted. While the financial redress scheme will be open to applicants throughout the UK, the Bill’s measures to overturn convictions will apply to England and Wales only.

Mark Pawsey: We on the Business and Trade Select Committee heard absolutely harrowing accounts from postmasters of what they had gone through as a consequence of the Post Office’s actions, but many of those cases took place many years ago. Can the Secretary of State be confident that the audit process in an organisation such as the Post Office will in future identify what has happened at an earlier stage, and does she agree that legislation such as this should never come before this House again—that this should not happen?

Kemi Badenoch: I believe that the inquiry being led by Sir Wyn Williams is currently looking at that issue. It is important that audit processes work at the highest level, and that people are able to rely on and have confidence in them, so I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point.
On the question of territorial coverage, as I said earlier to the hon. Member for North Antrim (Ian Paisley), my Department will continue working closely with the Northern Ireland Executive and the Scottish Government to support their approaches to addressing this scandal, ensuring that every postmaster who has been affected receives the justice they deserve, irrespective of where in the United Kingdom they are. Indeed, my colleague and hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), the Minister for postal affairs, has already met Justice Ministers in the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive to offer our support.

Stephen Farry: I accept that the Department is very keen to respect the devolved settlements in both Northern Ireland and Scotland, but can I stress to the Secretary of State that there is political consensus in Northern Ireland, and Ministers in the newly restored Executive would welcome Parliament acting in this particular area?
Due to the nature of devolution in Northern Ireland, we have to have a public consultation, so in the best-case scenario we are looking at well towards the end of this year before we can replicate legislation here in Westminster. As this was a national scandal, it does require a national solution to avoid a situation of inequity in which some postmasters in parts of the UK are exonerated while others are still waiting.

Kemi Badenoch: I take the point the hon. Member makes very seriously. We do understand, but we want to make sure that we do not create any possible unintended consequences by legislating on devolved issues, so we are working hand in glove with the Northern Ireland Executive to make sure this goes through as quickly as possible. We know that the numbers there are much smaller, and that the postmasters there have been identified. He is right to raise the point, but I want to reassure him that we have every confidence that we will be able to get this done at the same pace.

Liam Byrne: Could I put that question in a slightly different way? The Minister for postal affairs has set out an ambitious timetable for the passage of this law, the overturning of convictions and the dispensation of compensation, with it all possibly being done and dusted—with hope, and a following wind—by the end of July. Could the Secretary of State commit to a similar timetable when it comes to the cases that have been raised in Northern Ireland?

Kemi Badenoch: That is certainly something we can encourage the Executive to work to, but I cannot personally make that commitment because it would not solely be up to me. However, I just want to reassure the House that this is something we care about. We are not prioritising England and Wales because it is England and Wales; we are doing what we can as quickly as we possibly can to make sure that we do not create problems later by rushing and not doing things properly. I think that that is a good and ambitious target, but it would not be up to me to make such a commitment.
I am aware that the approach we are taking in this Bill is a novel one. With it, Parliament is taking a function usually reserved for the independent judiciary, as my right hon. and learned Friends the Members for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright) and for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) have said. However, I am equally aware that the postmasters’ long and punishing fight for justice must now be swiftly drawn to a close. The circumstances surrounding the scandal are wholly exceptional, and they demand an exceptional response from Government, so I would like to take this opportunity to reassure the House that the introduction of the Bill is in no way a reflection on the courts and the judiciary, which have dealt swiftly with the cases before them.

Katherine Fletcher: I would like to commend both the Secretary of State and her team for bringing forward this Bill. The sub-postmasters have faced a miscarriage of justice that has taken many people’s breath away. I am aware that this is specific and focused legislation, but two South Ribble constituents came to see me who had been Royal Mail customers, and they described scenarios of prosecutorial practice very similar to what sub-postmasters were subject to. Would the Secretary of State consider expanding the scope of the legislation in future to other people who may have been subject to poor treatment?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. I can look specifically at the cases she raises, but I think they may actually be covered by this Bill. I would be wary of expanding the scope too broadly. The consensus we have with the CPS, the judiciary and so on has been achieved by the legislation being very tightly scoped, but we do want to make sure that people who have been at the end of an injustice can have those wrongs righted. I am very happy to look at the specific cases of her constituents.

Andy Carter: I am very clear that this Bill is about correcting convictions that were made in error. However, there are of course a number of employees—direct employees—of the Post Office who were never convicted, but had their good name ruined and their careers destroyed, and have found it very difficult to gain employment because they were unable to get references from their previous employer. Indeed, probably the worst thing that happened to them is that they were identified in their community as people who were perhaps stealing from pensioners or treating members of their community unfairly. This Bill will do nothing for them. Could the Secretary of State outline what the Post Office is doing to contact those individuals who were disciplined by the Post Office and dismissed, so that they too can have justice?

Kemi Badenoch: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. He is right that many people had their reputations traduced because of what happened with the Horizon scandal. Where shortfalls were falsely made by the Post Office and they had to pay, we have compensation schemes to address those sorts of wrongs. Because this Bill is specifically about overturning convictions, it cannot apply to them, but where they have suffered other damage, we have compensation schemes that we hope will apply in those circumstances.
We have not taken the decision to legislate in this way lightly. Given the factually exceptional circumstances of the Horizon scandal, the number of postmasters involved and the passage of time since the original convictions, it is right that the state now acts as quickly as possible. Any further delay would be adding further insult to injury for postmasters who have already endured what I believe is an arduous wait. Indeed, some have lost trust in the system, and want no further engagement. In many cases, the evidence they would need to clear their names no longer exists.
However, I must make two points clear to the House. First, the Government’s position is that it will be Parliament, not the Government, that is overturning the convictions, so there will be no intrusion by the Executive into the  proper role of the judiciary. Secondly, this legislation does not set any kind of precedent for the future. It recognises that an extraordinary response has been necessitated by an extraordinary miscarriage of justice.
On this Bill receiving Royal Assent, no further action is required by the victims of this scandal to have their convictions quashed. The Government will take all reasonable steps to notify the relevant individuals and direct them to the route for applying for compensation. Further details of this process will be set out in due course.

Liam Byrne: The Secretary of State is being characteristically generous in giving way again. The evidence the Select Committee heard was that many people seeking compensation for the injustice they have suffered found it very complicated and very confusing to understand the range of case law required to put in particular kinds of claim—for example, for loss of reputation. When she triggers the notification provisions, would she reflect on something she could add, which is a tariff to help people put in claims for the right kind of compensation? What none of us would want to do, having overturned the convictions, is to let people get short-changed on the compensation. Providing a standardised tariff could cut through so much of the complexity and help people get what they are due.

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. I know that is a recommendation from his report, and it is something we are actively looking at and considering. As the Bill progresses through the House, there will be many suggestions that we will be able to look at to see whether it can be improved in any way. However, we must make sure that we do so in a way that does not jeopardise any of the objectives of the Bill—any of them at all.
As I was saying, further details will be set out in due course, and there will be a process for anyone to come forward where their convictions meet the criteria but we have been unable to identify them. The new primary legislation will be followed by a route to rapid financial redress on a basis similar to the overturned convictions scheme, which is currently administered by the Post Office, so we do not need provisions in the Bill to deliver that scheme. My Department, not the Post Office, will be responsible for the delivery of redress related to the quashing of these convictions. The Minister for postal affairs will return to the House at a later date to provide details on how we intend to deliver that redress.

Kevan Jones: I welcome the changes that have been made in the compensation. Some of the proposals—for example, for fixed sums—are going to make a lot of cases easier to sort out. I do not feel comfortable having the Post Office anywhere near this, frankly, and neither do the sub-postmasters. Will the Secretary of State think about a system of compensation that in practice cuts out the Post Office? There is no trust there among the sub-postmasters. Do I personally have any faith in the Post Office? No, I do not.

Kemi Badenoch: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. That is one reason why my Department will be looking after the redress delivered by the scheme.

David Davis: Let me reinforce the point made by the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones). There are people writing to me this week about the current handling of their cases by the Post Office and Post Office lawyers; frankly, it is barbaric. The Post Office needs to be taken out of it.

Kemi Badenoch: I reassure my right hon. Friend that this is something I am looking at in great detail. The Post Office has clearly been a dysfunctional organisation for a very long time, and that is one reason why I have been actively taking steps to look at the management and processes in place, which, as he rightly says, many of the sub-postmasters have lost faith in.
It goes without saying that work to offer prompt financial redress alongside the Bill continues. As of 1 March, 102 convictions have been overturned through the courts. Of those 102 cases, 45 people have claimed full and final redress, and of those 35 have reached settlement. The Post Office has paid out financial redress totalling £38 million to postmasters with overturned convictions. Under the Horizon shortfall scheme, as of 1 March, 2,864 eligible claims have been submitted, the vast majority of which have been settled by the Post Office, and £102 million has been paid out in financial redress, including full and final settlements and interim payments.
Finally, under the group litigation order scheme, working from the same date, 132 claims have been submitted, 110 have been settled by my Department,  and £34 million has been paid out in financial redress, including full and final settlements and interim payments. Officials in my Department are working hard to get those cases settled quickly, and we have made offers within 40 working days in response to 87% of complete claims.
In summary, the Bill amounts to an exceptional response to a scandal that was wholly exceptional in nature, and has shaken the nation’s faith in the core principles of fairness that underpin our legal system. We recognise the constitutional sensitivity and unprecedented nature of the Bill, but I believe it is essential for us to rise to the scale of the challenge. The hundreds of postmasters caught up in this scandal deserve nothing less. Of course, no amount of legislation can fully restore what the Post Office so cruelly took from them, but I hope the Bill at least begins to offer the closure and justice that postmasters have so bravely campaigned for over many years, and that it affords them the ability to rebuild their lives. For that reason, I commend the Bill to the House.

Jonathan Reynolds: I am pleased to be at the Dispatch Box to welcome the Bill; in doing so, I candidly recognise the difficult legal and constitutional position it represents. I will outline why I believe it is required, and the exceptional nature and caveats that we should all realise on Second Reading.
The Horizon scandal is, quite simply, one of the most egregious miscarriages of justice in British history. It robbed people of their lives, their liberty and their livelihoods. As we now know, driven by a misguided belief that technology was infallible and workers dishonest, the Post Office prosecuted innocent people. Indeed, they were the very people in whom the Post Office should have had the most faith—those who delivered vital services in all our communities.
Those prosecutions caused unimaginable pain and suffering, which no amount of compensation can ever alleviate. To add insult to injury, the journey to justice for the sub-postmasters has been mired in a great many delays and barriers. Some of the people affected have, tragically, passed away before having had the chance to see justice.
The Bill will free hundreds of innocent people of their wrongful convictions, and it affords us the chance to make a huge stride in righting the wrongs of the past. That is why Labour will give it our support. However, this must be just one of several steps still to come if amends are ever to be made for this most insidious  of injustices. The convictions must be overturned, compensation must be delivered at pace, and justice must be sought from the independent inquiry.
We must recognise today for what it is: a victory for the sub-postmasters. To have the strength of character to lose everything, and then to get back up and fight is truly humbling, and the recognition and admiration that those people have earned is absolutely right. Nevertheless, Members across the House will be acutely aware of the unprecedented nature of this legislative action. We all recognise that we should not have needed to get to this point, and it is important to explain why we are taking this step, why we believe this is an exceptional case, and why therefore this should never be repeated in future. I hope in this speech to do that.
I wish to recognise the work of the many people who have got us to this landmark occasion. First, no Member could deny that we would not be where we are today, pursuing this particular route, were it not for the recent ITV drama “Mr Bates vs the Post Office.” Although the Horizon Post Office failure is a scandal to which the House has been responding for some time, the drama brought the story to a wider audience and reinvigorated the campaign. It is a powerful reminder of the way that art and culture can be used to tackle injustice and raise public awareness. I thank everyone who was involved in that project, including my constituent Julie Hesmondhalgh.
Secondly, I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and Lord Arbuthnot in the other place, and all those colleagues who championed constituency cases from the beginning. Their tireless campaigning has been instrumental in getting us here to today.
Thirdly, I want to recognise the attention that the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), has given this matter and the progress he has achieved so far. I thank him for working cross-party on the design of this legislation, and for keeping me and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Shabana Mahmood) regularly updated. I also note that the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), who is in his place, was the first to get to grips with this scandal in the way that was required. He will be leaving this place in the coming months, and I hope that will do so with a sense of pride in the work he did, and I thank him very much for it.
However, today must be a moment when, above all else, credit and recognition go to the sub-postmasters and their courageous search for justice. They have been unrelenting and undeterred, and we owe them a great deal.  To be jailed or bankrupted because of faulty IT, and to have no one believe that their character mattered more than numbers on a spreadsheet, is why the scandal struck such a nerve with the public. Without the bravery of the sub-postmasters, we might never have known that this injustice took place—it is worth taking a moment to reflect on that.
The Bill will overturn 690 cases that were prosecuted by the Post Office and Crown Prosecution Service. We know it is a vital step in the course for justice for sub-postmasters, but we also recognise that doing so undermines a fundamental principle of our democracy: the separation of the judiciary and the legislature. Overruling the courts in this way could set an incredibly dangerous precedent, and one that I hope we will never use again. In an era of ever-creeping populism, there is a real threat that the well-intentioned actions we take today could be abused in future for completely unwarranted purposes.

Kevan Jones: I concur with my hon. Friend’s statement about the separation of powers. Does he agree that it is time for the courts and judicial system to reflect on their role in the scandal, and on why they did not raise red flags when they should have done? The hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) said that we should not criticise individual judges, but some of them acted in a way that, frankly—I say this knowing some of the cases as I do—did not reflect the best of our judiciary.

Jonathan Reynolds: My right hon. Friend makes a powerful contribution. Many things go beyond the Bill and the independent inquiry that we are currently looking at, regarding the role and experience of our constituents in the legal system, how Government and Executive agencies function, and the evidence given to Ministers and the accountability we seek from that. A great deal has to change as a result of this. I understand his point.

Shailesh Vara: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way; he is being generous with his time. Does he also agree that we must look not only at how lawyers have handled this but, more importantly, at those who produced the evidence in the first place to persuade prosecutions? I hope he will agree that lessons must be learned by those who blindly said, “These people are probably guilty” and built up a case around that when, as we have found, that was not the case.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank the right hon. Member for making those powerful points, which reflect on the nature of the evidence that was given. One of his hon. Friends has already made the point about the role of technological, computer-based evidence in the legal process. To be frank, there is also the Post Office’s approach to the data as it saw it, which I assume it believed to be a way of unveiling wrongdoing, rather than questioning that data. Most of our constituents ask, “How could the number of convictions have gone from five or six a year to 50 or 60 without that being flagged in some way?” Clearly, the powers that be—at the time—thought the data was revealing wrongdoing, rather than necessarily revealing something going wrong.
We can see from the contributions we have already had that all Members participating in today’s debate and who will participate in the Bill’s future stages are mindful that what we are saying is not only important,  but might be referenced in future considerations. In that vein, let me clearly state that this legislation, although far from ideal, is the only option on the table for us to resolve this horrible injustice. But let me further state that any incoming Labour Government would never use this kind of action again. There are exceptional circumstances to this case that make it unique, rather than it being a moment to set a precedent for handling any future injustices.
The Post Office Horizon scandal took place over decades, and there is at least a decade’s worth of investigations that demonstrate the falsehoods behind many of the convictions made against sub-postmasters. That bank of evidence will only grow from the independent inquiry led by Sir Wyn Williams. The challenge to righting this wrong is not a lack of clear evidence, but a sheer volume of cases that is overwhelming the appropriate route to justice through the Court of Appeal. I lament that our justice system is under such strain, and it would be remiss of me not to point out that a better serviced Criminal Cases Review Commission could have avoided the extraordinary step that we must now take.
In addition, we must also recognise that a cohort of sub-postmasters with convictions are understandably reticent to take part in another process in a criminal justice system that so badly failed them the first time around. For the purposes of the historical record, an important qualification for taking this step is the scale of cross-party support that the legislation is attracting. I have raised that point with the Minister before, and I believe it to be an essential safeguard.

Kevin Hollinrake: May I thank the shadow Secretary of State for his cross-party and collaborative approach, which has brought us a significant step forward? I recognise the points he makes on the scale of the problem, which is why we have to act in this way. It is probably the least worst option for how we deal with this.
May I push back gently on his point that we have only started to act significantly since the TV drama? We welcome the public outcry that came as a result of the drama, the new attention that has been focused on the issue and the 1,200 new claimants who have stepped forward, but I push back because it is important that the public know that we were acting prior to the drama. We implemented the shortfall scheme in 2020, the inquiry back in 2020 and the GLO compensation scheme in 2021. The Horizon Compensation Advisory Board was put in place early in 2023, and the fixed-sum awards of £600,000 were put in place in autumn last year. We also had the overturned convictions and the exploring of different ways to do that on a mass basis. All these things were in place by the time of the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024, which we considered in December last year, and which the shadow Secretary of State and I spoke to during its consideration. Much work has been undertaken. We very much welcome the new impetus we have all got from the attention that the drama has brought about.

Jonathan Reynolds: I am always keen to hear from the Minister. I thought I was fair in making the point he raises in my introductory remarks. I simply make the point that the constitutional significance of legislation like this requires a level of public consent. The statement  that the Prime Minister made in January, just after Prime Minister’s questions, would not have been possible without the sheer breakthrough in public consent and the demand for change and for justice that came from that. I will always be fair to the Government’s Ministers, and I point out even to some of their critics that we were dealing with things. We had the legislation that colleagues had worked on. It is fair to say there was less interest in some of that in the Chamber before we had the television programme, but let us be frank that we had the impasse of people not wanting to go back to the process. The estimate we had at the time was 10 to 15 years. That is what brought us to that point, and we have to recognise that, as well as paying tribute to the role that arts and culture can play in bringing things to an audience, which we should welcome.
Finally, I think I speak for everyone in the Chamber when I say that in no way does anyone take lightly what we are proposing to do today. This action is unprecedented, and we should make every effort possible to ensure that such action never again has to be considered.

David Davis: This legislation is not totally the first precedent. There have been cases relating to people who were shot in the first world war for cowardice and then exonerated after the event, and so on. Does the shadow Secretary of State agree with the notion that we should put a sunset clause on this provision, to ensure that it in no way becomes a precedent?

Jonathan Reynolds: When we look at the precedents, it is interesting to note that there is clearly a legal difference between quashing a conviction and a pardon after an event has taken place, which is the precedent we are more familiar with. I am receptive to what colleagues are saying about a sunset clause from a judicial or safeguarding point of view. Clearly we want to capture as many people as possible who deserve to have their convictions quashed. When we get to Committee, which I assume will be on the Floor of the House, I am sure there will be an attempt to do that.

Alistair Carmichael: Is not the point about a sunset clause that none of us knows what is around the corner or what the future holds? Once this legislation has expired, the law of sod dictates that somebody somewhere will come up with a case that requires to be dealt with. That is eminently possible. A sunset clause would serve no useful purpose, other than smoothing a few ruffled judicial legal feathers.

Jonathan Reynolds: I hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying, and we do not want to do Committee stage on Second Reading. We are hearing about the necessity of ensuring that, where cases fall beyond the specific circumstances—to be fair to the Government, I understand why the legislation has been drafted in this way to address this particular cohort, for simplicity and straightforwardness—they can still be identified. Some of that could be done on the numbers, but we will have time to explore this matter in Committee.

Ian Paisley Jnr: On the issue of consent, the shadow Secretary of State is right to point out that all sides of the House have consented to this legislation, and that is what makes law change flow much easier. A lot of good will has been expressed about Northern Ireland and  increasing the territorial extent of this legislation, but that good will butters no parsnips—as someone else in the House often says. The fact of the matter is that, ultimately, we must ensure that Northern Ireland is included in this legislation. If a motion came forward to instruct the House to extend the Bill to cover Northern Ireland, would the Opposition support it, so that those fine words and good will are turned into strong action?

Jonathan Reynolds: I will say something specifically about the territorial extent of the Bill, but the straightforward answer is yes, there are circumstances here to which we should listen. I hope the hon. Member will not mind me saying this, but when all political parties in Northern Ireland are in agreement on something, it is usually worth listening and understanding why that might be the case. I will address specifically how we might deal with that matter later in my remarks.

Liam Byrne: The shadow Secretary of State is making a brilliant speech. Does he agree that we might want to reflect on measures to de-risk the speed of paying compensation? It is important that we overturn convictions, but it is also right that we accelerate compensation. Just because the Department is running the scheme is not necessarily a guarantee that payments will flow quickly. This morning, the Business and Trade Committee crunched the data on the GLO scheme, and unfortunately it would appear that 14% of offers have taken more than 14 days, 4% have taken more than 80 days, and 2% have taken more than 100 days. We obviously need to get the measures right, and there are lots of issues at play, but de-risking the speed of compensation sounds like something we should reflect on.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank my right hon. Friend for those remarks and for all the work the Select Committee has done to assist this process. He is right to say that while it is one thing to pass the Bill, what everyone wants is for it to be a route to speedy compensation as soon as possible. I welcome some of the changes we have seen, such as the optional £600,000 up-front payment available to people to get through some of the complexity of the cases. When the Select Committee published its report, it looked at the recommendation to include in the Bill deadlines for the Government to pay compensation, but we have since received useful information about how binding limits might restrict the most complex cases in an undesirable way. In his closing remarks, will the postal affairs Minister undertake on behalf of the Government to reflect on that point, because everyone will want to be able to say, “We care, and we have pushed forward the need for compensation payments to flow smoothly.”

Kevan Jones: I have to say to my good friend the shadow Minister that this is where I depart from the Select Committee. The advisory board has been very clear that we need to make the system simple. To be fair to the Government, they have listened on the lump-sum payments. What we need is to get those simple cases out of the system—I am not sure they are “simple”—and concentrate on the complex cases. Knowing the nature of some of those cases, they will be complex. It is not just the Government or the advisory board saying that. Talk to the lawyers who are putting cases in. There is a  lot of work to be done on those cases; they are not straightforward and they will take time. Putting an arbitrary deadline on them might lead to their not being properly addressed, and some cases will be about more than £600,000. Although it is a good idea to try to speed up the system, some of the steps already taken by the Government will do so.

Jonathan Reynolds: I thank my right hon. Friend for that. The work of the advisory board on all this has been invaluable and is very much appreciated. We can all accept that a number of cases may seek compensation payments well in excess of £600,000 because of the scale of the loss and the complexity. No one would want or seek to do anything to prevent those cases from concluding in the way that is necessary. I simply ask the Minister to reflect on how the Government can give assurances on the best way to do that.
I come back to the issue raised by colleagues from Northern Ireland about the territorial extent of the Bill’s provisions and the desire to overturn the convictions of the small but significant number of affected sub-postmasters in Northern Ireland, who would otherwise fall beyond the scope of the legislation. I can tell colleagues that the Labour party supports the calls made. I understand that this would be a complex constitutional undertaking, but given that every party in Northern Ireland and, I believe, every Minister in the new Assembly are calling for inclusion in the Bill, we must recognise that.

Chris Stephens: Because this is an unusual case, the Scottish Government have specifically asked that the Bill also take in Scotland. I understand that the Labour party supports that position too, but we have not really heard any rational reason why Scotland and Northern Ireland are excluded from the Bill.

Jonathan Reynolds: The hon. Gentleman will not mind my teasing him about a call for Unionism from the Scottish National party. [Interruption.] Just on this issue! As I understand it, the issue is that the Scottish judiciary does not support inclusion.

Marion Fellows: That is ridiculous.

Jonathan Reynolds: Hon. Members will have a chance to speak; I cannot speak for every part of the judiciary in the UK, but I believe that that is the issue. The nature of the always distinct legal system in Scotland is a key part of this, whereas in Northern Ireland it is slightly more complicated.

Alistair Carmichael: I fear that the issue is not so much with the Scottish judiciary as with the prosecuting authorities, given the remarks already on the record from the Lord Advocate. If I may, I will offer the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens), through the shadow Minister, a rational reason: it is about political accountability. The lines of political accountability lie through the Scottish Parliament and the Crown Office. There are good and compelling reasons about delay for making an exception for Northern Ireland, particularly in relation to the requirement for a full public consultation. Those arguments do not apply in Scotland.

Jonathan Reynolds: I hear what the right hon. Member says. I can foresee it being seen as reasonable to extend the legislation to Northern Ireland in a way that will not apply to Scotland, given the position of a lot of colleagues in Scotland and without the Scottish Parliament and Scottish judiciary wanting to be part of that extension.

Carla Lockhart: The shadow Secretary of State is making a powerful speech, particularly about the impact on the lives of the sub-postmasters. The 28 or so in Northern Ireland have experienced the same turmoil as those in Great Britain. We thank the shadow Secretary of State for his endorsement of Northern Ireland’s inclusion in the Bill. We would make a further call for that today.

Jonathan Reynolds: I am grateful to the hon. Member for those words. I know that colleagues from Northern Ireland are keen to bring forward an amendment on that. I ask Ministers to reflect on the scale of political support that we have seen and are seeing, and to take the issue away for further consideration before the Committee stage, so that justice can be brought to the 27 sub-postmasters—I think—in Northern Ireland.
To conclude, for many people who watched the ITV adaptation of the Horizon scandal in January, it will have been hard to believe that the ongoing tragedy was not a work of fiction, so egregious and pernicious have the impacts been on people’s lives. However, it was not a TV show. It is very real and has had real-world impacts. Lessons must be learned and justice must be served. In the weeks after the drama, I believe attention sadly had to be turned away from the sub-postmasters and their needs, and the conversation became much more about the soap opera that has been seemingly ongoing with the management of the Post Office. Addressing that issue will demand serious attention, but the priority today should be providing sub-postmasters with justice. It is welcome that we have returned to that core issue today.
Labour will support the legislation. It is right that innocent people have their convictions overturned, not just so that they can begin to turn the page on the scandal, but so that it leads to the quick access to compensation that everybody rightly deserves. Not every story will finish with a happy ending. As we know, some people did not live to see this, and others have lost so much that their lives could never be put right. However, the actions we can take in this place can go at least some way to ensuring that the next chapter of the story of the sub-postmasters will be their own and will be based on the principles of justice and fair treatment that everyone wants to see.

David Davis: I hope the Secretary of State will not take this amiss and will understand that I mean no criticism of her or her Minister of State, or indeed his predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), when I say that the Bill represents the best of a bad job. Everybody has said it already; there is a difficult trade-off between natural justice and a fast, low-stress solution for the postmasters. That is what this Bill attempts to achieve.
That being said, it is not the way I would have done it. It is not what I would have proposed. The courts should and could have considered all the cases in which the  convictions were based on Horizon evidence in one set of proceedings. I took senior legal advice on this; it would have been perfectly possible to take three or more former Supreme Court justices out of retirement, give them a courtroom and task them to deal with this in three months. They could have bracketed very similar cases together—there would have been hundreds in those categories—and then they could have focused on the ones that were really difficult. Regrettably, it is rumoured that the judiciary itself rebuffed that course of action, which I think was unwise and plain wrong. As the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) pointed out, the judiciary has a responsibility, too. That is why we have gone this route, and I have every sympathy with what Ministers are trying to do.
Even so, the Bill still risks lumping the genuinely innocent majority with a very small potentially guilty minority. Each difficult case could have been dealt with on its individual merits rather than abandoning due process in the rush to bring this disgraceful episode to a close. We got into this situation by failing to follow proper processes, and I am wary that the Government, almost by default, are again failing to follow proper process to extricate themselves from this historic mess.
Despite my misgivings, I will not stand in the way of the Bill, because it will serve the vast majority of postmasters to secure justice for them. For that reason, I will support the Bill. However, that is not to say that the legislation will not continue to create problems of its own. I recommend that Members read some of the early reports before Report stage. The BAE Systems Detica report, which everyone should read, is a six-month review of the Post Office’s fraud and non-compliance issues in 2013. It paints a picture of complete chaos in the Post Office’s accounting systems—not just Horizon but all the accounting systems. Over a decade ago it was known that:
“Post Office systems are not fit for purpose in a modern retail and financial environment”.
Note that it refers to “systems”—plural—not just Horizon. The report goes on to say that ATM—cashpoint—accounting was clearly flawed and that
“removing the ATM reduces the risk of SPMR being suspended”.
By SPMR the report means sub-postmasters, and I am afraid that suspended means persecuted, as that was outcome. That was not Horizon related.
That matters because dozens have come forward to raise concerns over a second IT system used by the Post Office, called Capture. Again, documents show that Capture was known by the Post Office to have issues early on. The culture of denial in the Post Office over the decades is truly extraordinary. The Bill will exclude people who have already had their appeal cases heard and rejected. Those rejections may well have occurred because the evidence that the appeals were based on was not Horizon but some other failure of the accounting systems. We must be careful not to give up once we pass the Bill, but to see if we can also absolve people who are not guilty because of the wholesale chaos that existed.

Duncan Baker: rose—

David Davis: I give way to probably the best-informed man in the House on this matter,.

Duncan Baker: My right hon. Friend makes a good point: the Post Office main accounts would have had debtors saying that they were owed money—

Nigel Evans: Order. Will the hon. Member please face the Chamber, so that the whole House can hear him?

Duncan Baker: My apologies. The debtors would have said that those innocent sub-postmasters owed the Post Office corporate accounts what we now know to be tens of millions of pounds. But they were wrong—that was fictious and they were not owed that money. Will we ever get to the bottom of that and restate the Post Office’s accounts, which must have been materially wrong year after year throughout that period from 2010?

David Davis: My hon. Friend has more experience of this issue than anyone, and he reinforces my point. Frankly, if I had a magic wand I would force the Post Office to re-audit every set of accounts for the last 20 years and give back the money, but that will not happen: it would drag on forever, and we know the stress that it is causing postmasters even today. My worry is that we may feel at the end of this process that we have solved the problem, but there will be some—perhaps only dozens or hundreds, not thousands—who will be left not absolved or exonerated, but who deserve to be. That is the risk of this approach.

Liam Byrne: Given the right hon. Gentleman’s argument, will he reflect on whether we should include in the scope of the Bill those who went to the Court of Appeal initially but lost, or those who were not given leave to appeal, on the basis that we simply did not know then what we know now? Should we provide for that handful of cases—perhaps under 40—in the Bill rather than exclude them?

David Davis: Those are precisely the cases I am focusing on; there may be others that we do not know about but they are the most obvious ones. I agree but, again, if I had a magic wand, I would use the mechanism that I mentioned of unretiring a few Supreme Court justices and saying, “These are more complicated and require a bit more insight. You can’t deal with these en bloc. Will you please reconsider them?” On the one hand, I want to exonerate people who are truly innocent but, on the other, postmasters still call me up and say, “Whatever you do, don’t exonerate the guilty.” It seems to me that the best way is a judicial or quasi-judicial route over and above what we are doing here. No doubt we will debate that at some length on Report.
I will still support the Bill because, at the end of the day, it is the difficult compromise that the Government have found. They have got to where they are by talking to everyone, including the right hon. Member for North Durham, who is not in his place just now, and taking all the expert advice. The Bill is necessary.
I had a telephone call just yesterday from a victim of the scandal, which I mentioned in my earlier intervention. Her name is Janet Skinner, and she is not my constituent but she called me anyway. She told me that 15 years later, she is still going through misery and, despite having promised me that they would not, Post Office management are putting her through an inquisition,  demanding documents from her from 15 years ago. During that time she was in prison and had to sell her house, so she probably has no documents, given the disruption of all that. The Post Office itself will have those documents somewhere, and if it does not, it ought to have them.
That barbaric mindset is still going on from, frankly, a sickeningly inadequate and self-absorbed Post Office management, as we saw when they gave evidence to the Committee of the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne). That is a problem, and we have to get the Bill under way as fast as possible. I pay enormous credit to both the junior Ministers who have dealt with this, my hon. Friends the Members for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake) and for Sutton and Cheam. They were both formidably good at their job at a time when the whole Whitehall and Post Office system was desperately trying to ignore the issue. They did a heroic job of dragging it back up the priority list. The Minister needs to force the Post Office to solve the problem, or, as the right hon. Member for North Durham said, force someone else in its place to put this right quickly, easily, gracefully and with minimum stress for the postmasters.

Marion Fellows: I have been listening intently to everything that has been said today. I would like to reflect on the number of times I have stood here and talked about the Horizon business. I do not want to repeat my previous remarks, but I agree with everything that the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) said, which has been repeated in this Chamber many times.
We are coming close to a point where we may see movement towards justice for sub-postmasters. The exoneration Bill is vital to that. I am deeply disappointed that Scotland has been left out of the Bill. I have been working hard with the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), and I have had many meetings with Northern Ireland MPs from all parties. If Northern Ireland is to be included in the Bill, I can see no reason why Scotland cannot be.

David Davis: I have every sympathy with the hon. Lady and in particular with Northern Irish Members on this matter. Northern Ireland is a very special case in so many ways, for reasons we all know. Is there a reason why the Scottish Parliament and the Scottish Government could not simply replicate the Bill and carry it through?

Marion Fellows: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. There is absolutely no reason, and the Scottish Government are indeed prepared to do that. There is ongoing work on that, but it will mean that Scottish victims will have to wait longer for exoneration.

Alistair Carmichael: The Scottish Parliament has provisions in its own Standing Orders for emergency procedures, just as we have. It would be open to it to do it in three days, if it chose to.

Marion Fellows: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am surrounded by lawyerly people and I am not a lawyer. In fact, I sat in a room last night for a briefing where I was surrounded by lawyers and  even the lawyers were agreeing that they could not agree on the right way forward. The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely correct, and the Scottish Government will do that, but they cannot do it until we see what happens with the Bill as it is brought towards enactment and until we can take into consideration all the amendments that may be necessary for Northern Ireland. That will create a delay. Yes, the Scottish Government can—I cannot say they will, because I am not a Member of the Scottish Parliament or the Scottish Government—and it is possible for the Scottish Parliament to pass a Bill in three days, but it must be aligned with the exoneration Bill passed here. Otherwise, Scottish victims will not be treated equitably and fairly.
On 10 January, the Minister spoke in this place to, I believe, the hon. Member for Edinburgh West (Christine Jardine) and said he saw no reason at that point why there could not be UK legislation. At an Interministerial Standing Committee on 12 March, the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities said that he saw no reason why that could not happen. Yet a few days after that the Bill arrived in Scotland with no mention of Scotland at all. It is the Scottish Government’s belief that the Bill could be amended to take into consideration the differences in legal terms. For example, amendments would be needed to bring about alignment on embezzlement and to cover all the different crimes, if you like—well, not crimes, because the sub-postmasters did nothing wrong—so that the Bill would apply in Scotland. The Bill could clear the decks of all the things sub-postmasters were charged with and convicted for, so it is all possible. The issue is one of timing, with sub-postmasters in Scotland being told, “Okay, you’ve waited, but you’ll have to wait longer.”
In this place, and right across the work I have done over the past few years on the Post Office, there has always been cross-party agreement on getting things sorted out for the victims. As the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde said, that is the point of the whole thing. It is about the victims. It is about what has happened since “Mr Bates vs the Post Office” was broadcast. I sat with my daughter-in-law, who is herself a lawyer—I don’t hold that against her—and she kept saying, “Is this true, Marion? Is this true?” and I had to say that yes, it was.

Kevin Hollinrake: I thank the hon. Lady once again for the all the work she does. As I have said to her on a number of occasions, our officials are working together on a weekly basis and I have met my counterparts in Scotland on this issue. She will acknowledge that the UK Parliament is taking a political risk. This is unprecedented and unpopular in some quarters. Does she not accept that, as politicians, there are times when we have to stand up and accept the political responsibility and accountability for doing the right thing in our own jurisdictions, just in the way the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) said?

Marion Fellows: I agree with the Minister—of course I do—but let us think back to the victims. Scottish victims should not have to wait any longer than victims across the rest of the United Kingdom. If the Scottish Government were to expedite a Bill in the Scottish Parliament without knowing exactly where this Bill will end up—already today there has been talk of amendments to it to help Northern Ireland—then that would not be right either.

Jonathan Reynolds: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Marion Fellows: I want to move on, but I will.

Jonathan Reynolds: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady. I am absolutely willing to listen to the case she is making—that we could, in theory, amend the Bill to cover Scotland—but I do not, if I am being honest, follow the logic that it would take longer to pass a Bill affecting Scottish sub-postmasters in the Scottish Parliament than to amend the Bill before us. I do not agree that extending it to Northern Ireland would in any way adversely affect the Scottish situation.

Marion Fellows: The hon. Member has every right to disagree with me, but I come back to my main point. The Scottish legislation would have to mirror what is done here so we treat victims across the piece the same way, but there would have to be certain amendments made because of Scots law. That is my point: we cannot do it in Scotland until it is done here, so that it mirrors what has been done here.
The other point I want to make is that this has nothing to do with the Scottish Parliament or the Northern Ireland Assembly. The whole business of Horizon arose here under Post Office Ltd, which is wholly owned by the UK Government as the single shareholder. There is therefore a logic to saying that the mess was made here, so it should be cleared up here. No matter whether there ends up being a separate Bill in Scotland with this Bill relating only to England and Wales, everyone across parties agrees that this must be sorted. The Bill is not really what we would all want to do—it is unprecedented, there are risks and so on—but at the end of the day it has to be done. The Scottish Government understand and support that, but want it done here to cover everyone.

Shailesh Vara: I am most grateful to the hon. Lady, who has been very generous in giving way. She says that the Scottish Government want to see what happens here. We have heard that a Bill can be passed in three days. Once the Bill goes through this place, then in a matter of days, not weeks, it can be replicated in Scotland and passed in 72 hours. Given that the matter has been going on for years and years and years, I fail to see what the big issue is with having a few days more so that a Bill can get through in Scotland.

Marion Fellows: There is absolutely no guarantee that it would just be a few days more. There are the different timings of Scottish Parliament sittings and a lot of other considerations that the right hon. Gentleman will not know about and does not normally need to know about. I will be seeking to amend the Bill—I will take advice and then attempt to do what is going to be done for Northern Ireland. I am well aware that that may seem a futile exercise to some, but this is democracy and this is what has to be done from a Scottish perspective, and I am more than happy to take that on.
I would like to close with some messages that have already come out from Members across the Chamber.As a constituency MP, I first had a meeting with sub-postmasters in 2015, two months after I was elected. I had no notion of what Horizon was, or of the damage that it was doing to my sub-postmasters. Over the last almost nine years—and more recently, since “Mr Bates  vs the Post Office”—I have had to listen to grown men, and also women, trying not to cry because of what the Post Office had done to them. None of them, not one, was actually charged or prosecuted. They just went on putting their own hard-earned cash into their tills so that they could open their post offices the next morning. I have pleaded with all those people, and I plead again with people across the UK who have been affected, to come forward, but the problem is the lack of trust. Those who were prosecuted are suffering, but so are those who were not. They are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder. They are traumatised by what has happened to them.
I also want to raise, very briefly, the case of those who worked for partners of the post office: people who worked for the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, Scotmid or CJ Lang who were sacked by their employers and could not get an equivalent job, and who were depressed and ill for years as a result. We really must take those people into consideration. I understand that a Bill cannot be a magic wand and make everything go away, but I think it imperative for the House to keep at it. I agree with my right hon. Friend—and I call him that gladly—the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) that we cannot impose a time limit, because it might mean that people did not receive justice or redress.
I should be happy to speak to the Minister later and catch up with all the to-ings and fro-ings between Scotland and this place, but I still stand here saying, “This is what the Scottish Government have looked at, and this is what they want, because they think it is best for the victims in Scotland.”

Paul Scully: It has been a privilege to sit here listening to the amazing contributions from the Secretary of State, the shadow Secretary of State—I thank the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) for his kind words—and all the other Members whom we have heard from and will hear from after my own short contribution.
As we have just been reminded by the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), we have been coming here time and again for years and years, often repeating ourselves—but we have to repeat ourselves: that is the point. The shadow Secretary of State talked about that powerful ITV drama, “Mr Bates vs the Post Office”, and how it prompted a public outcry. I became a Minister in February 2020, shortly after the group litigation order case that was featured towards the end of that drama, and I am pretty sure that the email Alan Bates was typing to send to the postal affairs Minister was sent to me. He was sending quite a large invoice, which I politely declined to pay at the time.
I had pages and pages of Mr Justice Fraser’s judgment to look at and reflect on. I was in a different position from my predecessors, who maybe should or maybe should not have sat there and read the runes and seen what was going on—why there were so many people involved, and why the number of prosecutions was going up and up over 20 years. What I did have were those pages of damning judgment from Mr Justice Fraser.
I think that the public outcry that arose from the ITV programme has given power to the current postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and  Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), who has been working tirelessly. He has read out a timetable showing the incredible amount of work that he has been doing since I left that role. I know that he is a man who understands what justice and fairness look like following his experience of financial scandals such as the miscarriage of justice at HBOS Reading. He was a constant “come to me” in that role. If anyone was going to delve into this work, it was always going to be my hon. Friend. I think that the documentary helped him to pull some of the levers that junior Ministers sometimes need to pull in order to be heard, and to enable us to swim through the treacle in other Departments in order to get things done, so more power to his elbow.
That brings me to why we are doing this in the first place. The central issue is often seen as a software failure. Even in the documentary it was a deliberate dramatic plot device to show a computer sitting in the corner of the post office, blinking away like a slightly alien life force that was draining the money away. But it was not a software failure; it was a human failure. We all know that software goes wrong—we remember the millennium bug—but the problem here was group-think and people doubling down for reputational management, which was pushing back and making sure that the postmasters believed that they were the only ones experiencing these issues. We know now, and we quickly came to know, that hundreds of people were in the same position.
The fact that this was a human failure means that we need a human solution. We have to be humans first and politicians second. The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw spoke of watching grown men trying not to cry. I am not the best at doing that myself, although I am not directly involved. I recently attended the presentation of the GG2 Asian awards round the corner from here, and to my surprise I saw Hasmukh Shingadia, Vijay Parekh, Vipin Patel and Seema Misra. Members may remember Seema’s story in particular; she was pregnant at the time when she was charged in West Byfleet. Those people were receiving awards and recognition, and it was lovely to see the outpouring of support for them in the room.

Shailesh Vara: Those are the people who received the awards, but does my hon. Friend agree that an award is due for every single sub-postmaster?

Paul Scully: For sure. We cannot do enough for these people. They have been cast out as pariahs in their communities. They have been charged, they have been put in prison, they have lost houses, families and health, because of a body that is ultimately owned by the state. We, as a collective body, have destroyed these people’s lives. There is not enough that we can do for them.
We are looking at what is in the Bill and at all the other compensation schemes as well, but we have to act. We are having to conduct this mass exoneration in the first place not just that the wheels of justice turn slowly, but because these people are so triggered, whether by PTSD or simply by total mistrust of the system, that they do not want to go through another process with someone in authority saying kind words, warm words, and then letting them down for the second time—or worse. It is actions, not words, on which we will be judged. When I stood up at that Dispatch Box, I knew that whatever I talked about, I could not expect the  postmasters to trust me. I knew that they would trust me on the basis of my actions, and I know that my hon. Friend the current Minister feels the same way.
I welcome the Bill. It is important for us not to let perfection be the enemy of the good. Let us get this done, because we cannot come on to the second Bill and these people’s compensation until they have been exonerated—not pardoned, for they have done nothing wrong. Let us make sure that we accentuate that as well. That is why I am keen for us to rush this legislation through. Yes, we need to scrutinise it, but it is a short Bill, so we can do that quickly, and then we can get on to that life-changing money that I—that we—keep talking about, and try to restore some semblance of their lives to those whose lives have been destroyed.
This is Second Reading, and we will get into the specifics in Committee and on Report, but let me offer a few possible solutions. The solution that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) talked about earlier—bringing back judges—would at least add capacity to the system. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill), who is no longer in his place, previously said something similar when he said that we do not necessarily need this kind of law, which is, frankly, trampling quite a lot on the independence of the judiciary. That is why the Government had to move really carefully, which is one reason for some of the concerns raised by the Business and Trade Committee about the people who have not been able to go to appeal, or who will not be included because they have been refused leave to appeal or have failed in their appeal.
There is still more that we can do for victims of this scandal. They will be able to appeal at another time, but maybe there is something we can do, in the way that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst suggested in their contributions, to accelerate their cases and not just let them have to go through the same situation that they would otherwise have done. May I respectfully suggest that that may be the case for Scotland and, indeed, Northern Ireland? I am not an expert or a lawyer, and it is not for me to give advice, but it occurs to me that if the proposed amendment does not go through and the territorial extent stays as it is—that is for this place to judge in other stages of the Bill—perhaps there are other methods that we can use to make sure that postmasters in Scotland and Northern Ireland do not receive compensation more slowly.
We all want this to be done as quickly as possible. The postal affairs Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton, has talked about getting the majority of the compensation delivered by August. Clearly, that is not going to happen, because we have only just got this Bill through, so we will have to exonerate the postmasters. However, if we can get the Horizon shortfall scheme and the rest of the GLO largely done by that time, and restore these people’s lives to some sense of normality, then we can do the rest of it. We still have not finished, because we have to get Sir Wyn Williams’s report back and get the investigation done.
Some previous contributors to the debate said that it might take weeks or months to deliver the compensation, and that there might be complications. I remember speaking to the solicitors who represented the 555 people  involved the GLO. I said, “If we gave you lots and lots of money and you distributed it, how long would it take?” The answer was about 18 months. It is about how we apportion the money and work it through—the same kinds of things that the advisory committee has been wrestling with—and the solicitors would have to do that internally. It is not a matter of giving people life-changing sums of money in one block and then everybody is okay; it is about making sure that we can work through the system, which will inevitably take time.
When I made Sir Wyn Williams’s investigation non-statutory, it was to get speed into the system to make sure that we did not have to “lawyer up”, as it was described. I always wanted money to go to the victims, not to lawyers talking about the same things again. As I say, if we can get the compensation out, we have to get the answers. We keep on talking in this place about the Horizon scandal, the infected blood scandal and any number of scandals, and I keep hearing people say that it must never happen again. Do you know what? It usually does. Why? Because we talk and talk about it, but we do not learn the true lessons or get the answers.

David Davis: One of the things we need to consider, both now and later, is how we stop this happening again. I reiterate the point I made in my speech: when the inquiry looked at it, there was systemic failure right across the board. My hon. Friend is right to say it was a human failure, a system failure and an organisational failure. The Post Office is an arm’s length department. What we are finding with this and other cases is that arm’s length departments are disasters when it comes to correcting mistakes and delivering accountability. Does he agree that we should think about that when we are doing this?

Paul Scully: As usual, my right hon. Friend is absolutely on point. In our Department, we had a number of arm’s length organisations, which is true of other Government Departments as well. They are representatives of the Government, and we elected politicians or the Government will inevitably be held accountable; if there is no direct relationship, it is very difficult to speak from the Dispatch Box with enough authority and information to be able to take that accountability.

Shailesh Vara: I commend my hon. Friend for a very passionate and committed speech. The point about learning lessons is crucial. I fear, as do others in this Chamber, that in the old times we would say that the file is sitting on a shelf, collecting dust; nowadays, it would be archived and just stay there. Does my hon. Friend agree that serious attention needs to be paid to ensuring that we learn from this episode and the countless other occasions when things go wrong? There needs to be some sort of set-up to make sure that other bodies—voluntary organisations or those at arm’s length—actually take on board what has been said.

Paul Scully: Absolutely; that is a really good case in point. I hope my right hon. Friend will be in the next Parliament to help drive this through. I have said I am stepping down, so I will not see Sir Wyn Williams’s final report—not from these Benches, anyway. I hope the House takes it to heart and drives through the lessons learned.
I recommend a book by Matthew Syed, called “Black Box Thinking”. He compares accidents in the NHS with accidents and near accidents in the airline industry.  With aircraft, even just a near miss gets learned from not only by the airline in question; it has to be passed on to every airline in the world. There is a collective sense of learning in the industry.

Chris Stephens: I have enjoyed the hon. Gentleman’s considered speech so far. When he was a Minister, did he have a potential solution for what my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) mentioned: the Asda employees in Scotland who have been caught up in this scandal?

Paul Scully: I did not, but the issue is worth looking at. This is a human scandal, and it is not just about the postmasters who were directly affected. I am not sure how we start to unpick that as it gets wider and wider, but I hope and trust that the Government will reflect on it as we do the wider learning.

Kevin Hollinrake: I was tempted to intervene on two of the interventions I heard, but that is impossible here. It is certainly possible that the person who had the contractual relationship with the business concerned, such as a small post office, could submit a claim to the Horizon shortfall scheme, which could include amounts that should be paid to individuals who worked for them so that they can be compensated through that route.
Given that we are looking at public sector or quasi-public sector organisations, it would be dangerous to assume that there is a problem with governance. As my hon. Friend said, from the Back Benches I dealt with a number of scandals that involved private sector organisations, such as Lloyds and the Royal Bank of Scotland—we saw years of obfuscation around similar kinds of problems. We should not jump to conclusions. We should probably let the inquiry report first, and have a debate from there.

Paul Scully: My hon. Friend makes a really good point. To follow on from the intervention from my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden, it is difficult for us as parliamentarians, and doubly difficult for Government Ministers, to speak with authority on behalf of a public organisation—rather than the private sector, which we do not speak on behalf of—without necessarily having all the facts, because there is only so much we can drill into.
Obviously, we want to right the wrongs of the past and make sure as best we can that the people’s situations are restored so that they can have a future for themselves and their families. There is also the case of the Post Office itself. The Post Office still has more branches than the banks and building societies put together. I know that there have been closures in certain areas—that is a whole other debate, perhaps for Westminster Hall—but none the less, the Post Office has a massive impact on people’s lives, especially in rural communities. We must not forget that when we are looking at the Post Office, its brand and its overall aim. This is not a reflection on the current management or anything like that. We have to give the Post Office a future.

Matt Rodda: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work on this issue and other issues protecting local post offices and looking at the range of services they can offer to the community. Has he had any further reflections about the role of post offices in communities? I also want to thank him specifically for  the work he did to support my constituency. Perhaps, now that he has left the Government, he can tell the House his own thoughts on post offices as part of the local community and the potential for new services to be based in them.

Paul Scully: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s kind words regarding when we worked together on his constituency issue. We ask the Post Office to do a lot of work of social value and economic value, and those often conflict. It is difficult to get that right. We cannot ask the Post Office to turn a good profit as if it was just another bank, as well as to do the things we sometimes expect as parliamentarians, especially when we talk about our own constituencies and those in more rural areas. That is something we have to give careful consideration to. My original point is that while we are righting the wrongs of the past, we have to remember that this is an important organisation for our country and our constituents and we have to give it a future as well.

Kevan Jones: Can I begin by declaring an interest as a member of the Horizon compensation advisory board? It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully). When he was a Minister he grasped this issue and drove it forward, and I am sad to see that he is standing down at the next election. One thing he can claim great credit for is being the only Minister I have dealt with, apart from his successor, who had compassion and wanted to sort this out. Okay, we had some quite heated disagreements on occasions, but at least he was prepared to listen. He brought a unique set of skills, and when he leaves the House he can have this great achievement for the individuals affected as a great credit to his parliamentary record.
I welcome the Bill. It was a solution put forward by the Horizon compensation advisory board, and I want to pay tribute to Professor Chris Hodges, Lord Arbuthnot and Professor Richard Moorhead, who sit on the advisory board with us. When we came up with this plan, did we think that the Government would agree to it? No, we did not. Were we shocked when they did? We were. I will not say what Chris Hodges said privately at one meeting because it would be unparliamentary.
This was a difficult thing to do and it comes after years of heartache and a lot of campaigning by the sub-postmasters. Alan Bates has already been mentioned and I pay tribute to him and the 555. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, if they had not taken that court case, the dam would not have broken—this is down to those individuals who had the tenacity to do that. Over the years, has it been easy for those individuals? No, it has not. As someone who has been involved for many years, I can tell the House that we did sometimes doubt ourselves and ask whether we were missing something. We were not missing something; it was a complete injustice. But when the system and the state are against a person, it takes great courage and tenacity to continue. I know that some had self-doubt along the way, but all credit to them—they stuck with it.

Clive Efford: It is not just the Horizon case; it is also Hillsborough, Grenfell, Windrush and the contaminated blood scandal where people are still waiting for compensation. The state and the justice system, which are there to protect citizens, actually become the  enemy of the citizen. Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need to find a way for people to get quicker redress and have their cases heard, rather than the state saying that it cannot be wrong in any circumstances and leaving these people to fight for such a long time to get justice?

Kevan Jones: I agree totally with my hon. Friend and I pay tribute to him. In all these debates over the years, he has always been on my right hand side arguing for his constituents. I thank him for his work and his persistence.
My hon. Friend also raises a bigger point. When the state get things wrong—badly wrong in this case, but he mentions other cases as well—it goes into tortoise mode and says that it cannot be wrong. Well, it has been wrong. I am not making a party political point here, because is not one. Across the House we need to come up with a system of dealing with these cases, in terms of the transparency of information that we need to get out of the system and of having a swift compensation system for putting things right. We need to work on that in the next Parliament on a cross-party basis. As the Minister said earlier, he was involved in a number of cases that involved not the state but the private sector, but they were very similar. This is something I would certainly like to work with colleagues on.
I also want to thank the Minister for his work. I would not describe him as a show pony in politics; he is the steady shire horse of this place. He is solid and determined and he pushes on, even when obstacles are put in his way. I also give credit to him for the cross-party work he has done. He has not seen it as point scoring. He has worked closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds) and other Members across the House and I really appreciate that. I would just say to any new Ministers after the election: if you want two examples of how to do the job, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam and the Minister are it and they should take credit for that.
Today’s Bill is historic. We are doing something very unusual and there is a delicate balancing act to be struck between this place and the judiciary. I understand that. I always respect the judiciary, but I also reflect on the fact that it has some questions to answer in this process. We had the trade union movement for the lawyers earlier on when the hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) and the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) were on their feet—it would not be a debate without that lobby coming in—but the judiciary needs to ask the question: how did we get into this position? There was a pattern here, and robust questions were not asked. The hon. and learned Member for Bromley and Chislehurst said that we should not attack judges, but the conduct of certain judges in some of these cases was not very sympathetic to the victims, and we need to reflect on that. I do not think this place should interfere with the judiciary. The instant reaction that this is a fight between Parliament and the justiciary is wrong, but in this case the judiciary got it wrong.
The other area that desperately needs to be looked at is the use of computer evidence in court cases. At the moment, there is no reference to computer code in law. After the election, or sooner, we need an urgent review to reflect how computers are not static machines. They might be machines, but their software and code are ever changing. That is important.
I support the current approach, although I accept that some people are not comfortable with it. As the Minister said, only 103 cases have been dealt with so far, so I will explain why I am committed to this approach. Last year I had a phone call from an individual from the north-east—I do not want to identify him—who said that his friend’s wife had been prosecuted and that he thought it might be a Horizon case. I said, “Get him to speak to me, or I can go to see them.” It took quite a few months for him to persuade his wife to meet me.
It was only when I went to see the victim in her small council flat in the north-east of England that I understood why such people never come forward. This woman had run a successful sub-post office, but she was prosecuted by the Post Office. She should have a comfortable retirement and a highly respected name in the local community in which she still lives, but she does not. She is traumatised by her experience, and she was very reluctant to see me. She was terrified and kept asking, “My name won’t be in the paper again, will it?” I said, “No, no one will know what you have told me.” She would never have come forward to go into a court process. I have subsequently spoken to the family to reassure them that, if the Bill is enacted, the victim will not go to court. This woman is terrified. Her good name will be cleared, and she will have access to the compensation that she rightly deserves.
That is just one example, and there are numerous others. People ask whether the Bill is a messy way of doing it, but I do not think it is, because people like that victim would never have justice without it. Some people might be uncertain about what we are doing, but I am not. These are unique circumstances, and I do not think they set a precedent. We can ensure that these people have their good name restored.
When the newspapers have said that a sub-postmaster stole money that they did not steal, it takes a lot for them to stay in their small community. This happened 20 years ago and the victim is still traumatised, which is why this Bill is the right approach.
I welcome last week’s announcement that fixed awards will be offered through the Horizon shortfall scheme. The advisory board was pressing for this, and the Minister championed it too. These awards are a good way of ensuring that we deal with cases speedily. I read the Select Committee’s report, and I disagree on the time limit. We need to settle the straightforward cases—they are not all straightforward, but some are.
The Minister, like me, does not want to pay lawyers. It will be better if we can avoid paying lawyers by ensuring that the compensation goes to the victims, and fixed awards are the way to do it. I consider this to be like a bucket, and we need to take out the simpler cases. We then need to consider the more complex cases, which will take time. It is easy to say that officials are deliberately slowing down the system, but I do not believe that at all. Even the lawyers representing these people need time to do it. As the Minister knows, some cases will be very expensive, more than the £600,000 compensation award. This is the right approach.

Matt Rodda: My right hon. Friend is making an excellent and powerful speech, and I particularly concur with his description of the enormous challenges that many victims face. Does he agree that the nature of any review or policy development is particularly important?  If we can find a way to speed up the compensation by dealing with the slightly less difficult cases first, it could benefit everyone and may reduce the costs to the Government and the public.

Kevan Jones: I think it is. In fairness, the Minister wants to get these cases done quickly, as does the advisory board. One controversial thing is that some people will get a little more money than they lost. I am comfortable with that, because I would sooner they get the money than it go to the lawyers or the process be dragged out. If we can get those cases dealt with speedily—some progress has been made on that—we can then get the effort and force put into sorting out the more complex ones.

David Davis: The right hon. Gentleman rightly says that some people may get a little more money than perhaps come out of the arithmetic, but would most of us not pay anything to avoid what they have gone through?

Kevan Jones: Exactly. If somebody gets more money out of this than they have in quantum lost, I am comfortable with that, as I believe is the Minister. It is better putting it into their pockets than into the pockets of lawyers, who will take their time, with this adding to the trauma that these people will have in dealing with these cases over many years.
Let me turn to the Bill’s Horizon pilot scheme provisions, because we have to address not only the Horizon scheme but the pilots that came before it. Condition E for overturning a conviction in the Bill is that the “Horizon system” was being used at the time of the offence. Clause 8 makes provision in respect of
“any version of the computer system known as Horizon (and sometimes referred to as Legacy Horizon, Horizon Online or HNG-X) used by the Post Office”.
We know that there is a difference between those pilot schemes and the actual Horizon scheme that took over—I know that, having been able to recite some of these things in my sleep.
People used a Horizon pilot scheme in the north-east as early as 1996—one went on to be convicted and others lost their livelihoods and were made bankrupt. I recognise that 1996 is the start date in the Bill, but I checked the Post Office’s website again this morning and it says that the roll-out and pilots of the Legacy Horizon system, as referred to in the Bill as part of condition E, started in 1999. So what systems were people piloting in 1996? Were they piloting Legacy Horizon? If they were, that would be at odds with what is on the Post Office’s website. I would like the Minister to refer to that and provide clarification in his wind-up, as a lot of those cases were in the north-east of England, in the area I represent.
Let me turn to another system, one that was pre-Horizon: the Capture system. As I understand it, it was software developed by the Post Office itself. I came across it through a case that had been referred to me. Given all the publicity about the Horizon scheme, it amazed me that the Post Office did not come clean and say, “Oh, by the way, we had Horizon, pre-Horizon and the Capture system beforehand.” If we look at the cases, we see that this was very much because of the attitude of the Post  Office towards the prosecutions. We had sub-postmasters who were accused of stealing money and their contracts were terminated. In some cases, they were prosecuted. There was a ridiculous situation in Coventry, where a woman was taken to court and prosecuted. The judge threw out the case on the first day, saying there was no case to answer, but lo and behold, what did the Post Office do? It took a private prosecution against her to recover the £30,000 it claimed she had stolen, which bankrupted her. That shows the mentality of those in the Post Office.
A lot of those cases mirror Horizon cases. I have referred 10 cases to the Minister, five of which relate to individuals who went to prison. As I have done before, I put on record the excellent reporting by Karl Flinders of Computer Weekly and Steve Robson of the i newspaper on those cases. It has been down to me, those two and others to do the detective work, so we need the Post Office to turn up the heat and ensure we get answers. Will the Minister tell the Post Office that it is not a good idea to threaten legal action against journalists? This week, after his latest story, Steve received a phone call threatening him with legal action. That is not very bright, especially as he had all the evidence to back up his story. If that is still the attitude of the Post Office, that shows why the current management need to go.
I understand why the Government cannot include Capture in this legislation, but we need a mechanism to deal with those cases because Capture is important. I have 10 cases, but there are clearly more out there. Clause 7 gives the Secretary of State powers to make “further consequential provision” by regulation. Will that provide a potential way to include Capture cases? The Minister has all the information and he is on top of the brief. I raise the issue today and I will propose an amendment in Committee to see whether we can flesh out the matter, but we need a way to deal with those cases. I have 10 cases, but there are certainly more out there.

David Davis: I am delighted that the right hon. Gentleman has raised that point. I referred in my speech to the 2013 BAE study that highlighted Capture, ATM cash management and a variety of other issues associated with audit failure, and basically described a chaotic management system. Earlier postmasters may not have been exonerated by subsequent analysis because people were looking at Horizon and nothing else, but we owe it to them to get this right, even if that is after this Bill has moved through the House.

Kevan Jones: People might think that because the system is not Horizon, the Bill does not apply to them, but the cases I am dealing with show that there was an injustice. I have spoken to individuals who went to prison. The computer systems were not same, but the Post Office showed the same attitude in the way it went at individuals. It did not believe the postmasters—they were going to be found guilty, come what may.

Paul Scully: That approach to the investigation and the presumption of guilt was what my hon. Friend the Member for South Ribble (Katherine Fletcher) was referring to in relation to her constituents and Royal Mail, as it was before ownership had transferred. The case did not get as far as prosecution, but investigation officers, the same kind of people that we have seen at the public inquiry, made that presumption.

Kevan Jones: I have seen some of those individuals at first hand at the public inquiry. People have said that everyone who is going to make a case has come out of the woodwork already, but that is not true. People are still coming forward. I am hearing about cases on a weekly cases. I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House who are keeping me busy by referring cases to me. Please send them to me—I am quite happy to help deal with them. I noticed this morning that there are another three cases in my inbox. The hon. Gentleman makes the key point that we need to look at those individuals to ensure we get some type of justice for them. I have to say that I was surprised by this, but, following the television programme, nearly 1,000 new cases came forward on the Horizon shortfall scheme alone. We may wonder what these people were doing all this time. Well, in some cases, they were not aware of what was happening. In other cases—

David Davis: They were hiding.

Kevan Jones: They were hiding, yes, because of shame and things such as that. It is only now that we realise what a massive miscarriage of justice this was that people have had the confidence to come forward. This Bill will help with that.
I shall come off Capture, because I think the Minister has got my point, but I return to those cases that have already gone to appeal. I do not criticise the Government on this, but we must find a system for dealing with those few cases that have gone through. It is no good the Court of Appeal hiding behind the fact that they have gone through, because, as the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam has said, new evidence has come out of the inquiry that was not available to the courts at the time. We cannot just leave those people hanging—I cannot remember off the top of my head how many individuals there are, but there are not that many.

Kevin Hollinrake: Let me just clarify that point. A total of 1,200 people have come forward since the TV dramatisation. Seven people have taken their case to the Court of Appeal and been heard, and six have been refused leave to appeal, which makes a total of 13 in that cohort.

Kevan Jones: What a fine research assistant the Minister is! He is right: the number is in single figures. Let us look at those cases. Let us see whether we can move forward on this. I am not criticising the Government for not including those individuals. I understand why they are not in the Bill, but we need to look at them. There are things that came out of the inquiry that would have changed the outcome in some, but perhaps not all, of those cases. If we do not look at them, those people will be left outside the remit of the Bill.
On the territorial extent of the Bill, I think the case was made earlier in relation to Northern Ireland. I see no reason why the Bill should not include Northern Ireland. We have cross-party support for it in Northern Ireland, and, as I understand it, the Executive are on board as well. We need to recognise that in Committee. I have to say to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) that I have less sympathy with the idea of including Scotland in the Bill. Not because those individuals should not get justice—they should—but because the issue is different in Scotland.  There are, in fact, two issues. First, there is the legal position: the way things are prosecuted in Scotland is very different from how it is done in the UK. Furthermore, there is a mechanism to do it, so the Scottish Government just have to get on and do it. I accept what she is saying about waiting to see what we do, but they would need cross-party support in the Scottish Parliament if that were to go forward. I do hope, however, that some amendment on Northern Ireland is brought forward in Committee, and I would certainly support it.
Finally, let me talk about the notification of individuals. Reference was made earlier to record keeping, which was not brilliant at the Post Office. We have to try to find “reasonable steps”, as the Bill says, to notify individuals. We need to look at that, because, again, some of these cases will be legacy cases. Sadly, some people will have passed away before they were able to get justice. Perhaps we need to say how we get to those cases that are possibly more difficult to get to than others.
To conclude, the Bill is long overdue, which makes this a historic day. I think of the woman I sat in front of in her council flat in the north-east of England, whose life has been ruined for the past 20 years, and who has had daily trauma because of the injustice and financial heartache that she and her family have faced. With the Bill, she will finally get justice; if that is the one thing I do in my time in this House, it will make me very happy.

Duncan Baker: It is a great honour to follow the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) and that poignant ending, with which we all empathise. He has done an enormous amount get us to this point, and I thank him for it. There is no doubt that today is a very good day. It has been brought about by the Secretary of State, Ministers past and present—they are not show ponies at all—the Prime Minister, particularly through his actions at the beginning of this year, and the chair of the APPG, the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). I have worked with her many times, and I thank her for all her work.
All those people must take credit for where we are, but it has taken an awfully long time. The Minister was right that an awful lot of work has gone on behind the scenes to get to this moment. Equally, I have total empathy with the comments I receive from members of the public that it should not have taken the turbocharging of an ITV drama to put right this scandal when people across the United Kingdom knew that the situation was utterly wrong. I sometimes wish that there was as much palpable anger in our communities about other scandals as there is about what has happened to sub-postmasters, so that we could fix some of those problems.
Let us not be too critical, however. We should applaud today’s lifting of the barriers, by quashing convictions, to speed up the compensation that is due to people. As has rightly been said across the House, the judiciary will raise concerns. That is only to be expected, but I conceptualise this as an unprecedented situation that requires an unprecedented solution. The odd conviction that was warranted may slip through the net, but this has been going on for more than 15 years. As has also been said, we must not let perfection be the enemy of the good; that sums up the whole predicament and issue fairly well.
Being a new MP in this place—albeit not such a new MP any more—and being able, by quite some accident, to talk about the matter with a degree of personal feeling has been a great privilege. I never expected that in 2014 I would become a sub-postmaster for a company that had purchased a supermarket with a post office in the back of it, or that in 2015 Budgens of Aylsham, which was the post office that I was the sub-postmaster for, would become the best post office in the entire country. I am very proud of that, and it has meant that my speaking about this issue has picked up quite a lot of attention. It has been a real privilege to bring my voice to the campaigning. I suspect that I will probably be the only serving MP who has been a sub-postmaster for the foreseeable future.
What brings the debate home to me is that I could so easily have been caught up in this problem. Had we purchased that supermarket a couple of years beforehand, I could have been suffering the consequences faced by so many of the men and women we are representing this afternoon. I still remember my stepfather wandering into my office and saying, “Well, you’re the finance director, Duncan. You will be the nominated legal sub-postmaster.” We thought very little of it, other than when I was given a postman’s hat at the staff Christmas party. I remember going on the Post Office training courses. Without a shadow of a doubt, the people I met were always good, decent, law-abiding citizens—the sort of people we saw in the drama documentary and about whom we have spoken so often. Every single one of us in the Chamber this afternoon will have constituents who have been caught up in this matter.
The right hon. Member for North Durham talked about people being traumatised; that is absolutely true. In the past three or four weeks, I have sat with a lady who ran a post office in my constituency. She said, “Duncan, I have seen you on the television. Will you come round and talk to me? I was running a village post office. I haven’t been able to sleep for years because I lost money, and I want to know whether I could be recompensed.” The Minister was incredibly helpful. He immediately gave me all the links for where I could help that lady. She and I sat down and went through her books and records for the best part of an hour, totting up a few of her columns. At the end of that process, I said, “I want you to sleep better tonight. I do not think you have lost any money; I think that you are one of the lucky ones. You may have had some losses in one year but gains the next because the system just did not work.”

Kevan Jones: We need to get that message out. I have quite a few cases in which people were not prosecuted, but they put money—a lot, in some cases—back in. The hon. Gentleman just spoke about ensuring that people come forward to get redress, and that is important. Some feel that they are not victims because they were not prosecuted or did not lose their livelihoods, but I have one case in which someone put in £80,000 over a period, and those people need redress.

Duncan Baker: The right hon. Member is absolutely right. The people watching this debate, or reading a report about it, must always remember that they can come forward, seek redress, and get help and support.  If all else fails, contact your local MP. Most of us just want to help the communities and the people we are so privileged to represent. I entirely take his point.
I was very lucky in the case of the woman I was dealing with. I could say, “You can sleep easy tonight, because you are one of the lucky ones. The system did not work properly.” That closure—being told that—lifted a weight off her shoulders. We in this place often have the ability to open doors that people cannot open themselves. I was so pleased to be able to help.
That lady represents what we keep talking about. Sub-postmasters and mistresses were pillars of their community. Everybody in their village or town knows that those people were criminalised and simply not believed. That is where the whole of this sorry period started. In the business that I ran, I remember being incredibly worried, when the tills went down, that we had lost money. I knew one thing for sure: the staff were not taking money. I trusted them entirely.
The problem was the culture at the Post Office, which had become a corporate beast. It was losing its soul in the early 2010s, when there was an enormous push to be a stand-alone organisation, to not be reliant on the Government, and to sell, sell, sell financial products. I remember going to a 2016 Post Office conference and meeting Paula Vennells. The irony is that the conference was called “Together”, but while it was going on, hundreds of men and women up and down the country were being convicted for crimes that they had not committed. That is not very collegiate.
The legislation may not be perfect.There are Department for Work and Pensions convictions that I have taken up with the Minister that are not included in the Bill, and I know the reasons why—or his explanations. That does not mean that I do not support what we are doing today, but I certainly want to say this: we are not there yet. I think this whole situation is going to run and run for many years to come.
I do not say that light-heartedly, because I think that real closure for people up and down the country does not just mean compensation and convictions being quashed; it means criminal prosecutions of those within the Post Office who knew what had happened, but did not take the actions that they should have taken. I suspect we will see those prosecutions come forward in the years to come. I have probably said seven or so times in this place that Fujitsu needs to face some real questions. Of course, it will—it has already accepted that it will contribute compensation—but how on earth could a piece of software written by a multibillion-pound corporation have had a back door into it with no audit trail, through which somebody could simply alter figures? That is absolutely frightening. As I mentioned before, it prompts questions about the accounts of the Post Office and its auditors. So many problems will never be fixed.
As I have also said many times, I want a figure for how much money was stolen from all of those innocent sub-postmasters. Nobody has ever been able to tell me what that figure is.

Kevan Jones: Or where it went.

Duncan Baker: Or even where it went. We could add up the figures that were taken off innocent men and women in the ITV drama alone, but across the country,  I suspect it was tens of millions of pounds—possibly even more than £100 million. That figure needs to be identified, so that we understand the full scale of what happened here. Of course, the inquiry will conclude later this year, which will finally give us some real evidence of what went wrong.
Although I have summed up by saying there are still many questions to answer, we must remember that today is a very positive day for many, many people who are watching who were caught up in this situation. I say again, and place it on the record, that it is nice when the House comes together. There are a great number of people in the Chamber this afternoon who have done an enormous amount of good, and can hold their heads very high that we have got to this place today.

Sammy Wilson: First, I welcome this piece of legislation and thank the current Minister, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake); the former Minister, the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully); and the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones), who guided me through some of the issues when I first became involved in this matter. It has been a long battle, but the job of this House when it identifies an injustice is to ensure that that injustice is addressed, and this was an injustice.
I am still baffled by how we ever reached this stage—how Post Office officials, Ministers and judges did not question how people who had so much to lose suddenly turned into thieves in their tens and hundreds. This did not happen over a long period of time. It was identified over a short period of time, yet those people were prosecuted unquestioningly. Indeed, some who knew the facts felt that because they had started going down this route, they had to continue to justify it, even if that meant withholding information and pretending that it was only one or two people so that others were not alerted to what was happening. It was an injustice.
I have heard arguments today that we have to tread very carefully with this legislation—that it is very delicate, that it could annoy the judges, and everything else. As the right hon. Member for North Durham has pointed out, the judges were also responsible, because they heard evidence. Did they question it as rigorously as they ought to have done? I do not know—I do not know many of the individual cases—but it is quite clear that many similar cases were coming before the courts, and somebody should have asked, especially given that the people who were being brought before those courts had so much to lose. Their reputation was destroyed, and up until this point, they had not engaged in that kind of behaviour.
I am not all that sensitive about stepping on some judicial toes with this legislation. This House has on many occasions been quite happy to overlook some of the legal issues in the context of Northern Ireland—exonerating, or giving letters of comfort to, people who had been guilty of murder, and so on—so I do not really have a great deal of sympathy with the argument that we have to be very concerned to tread carefully in relation to this piece of legislation.
There are just two issues that I want to raise. The first is the issue of those who have gone through the Court of Appeal already or have had their leave to appeal rejected. Given that, in most cases, the evidence that  was presented and the judgments that were made would have been made on the basis, or at least partly on the basis, of trust in technology—the very thing we are saying was wrong in the cases of those we are now seeking to exonerate—means that we should be looking at those cases. Whether or not they are dealt with on a one-to-one basis, they should not be ignored, because the same kind of evidence used in those appeal cases was used in the court cases. Again, it would be an injustice not look at those particular issues. Regardless of how that is dealt with, and whether we should include the appeal cases totally or they should be looked at individually, I think we cannot ignore that one.
Of course, the issue I really want to address is clause 9 on the territorial extent of this Bill. I have had conversations with the Minister, and I know he is sympathetic and understands the issues in relation to Northern Ireland. However, when I listen to the arguments, I really do not think there is a case for excluding Northern Ireland from the scope of the Bill. Yes, justice is a devolved issue, and the Minister has said on other occasions when I have raised this with him that we have to be very careful of the political sensitivities. However, I have to say that there was not much concern in this House about political sensitivities when we put through a list of Bills the length of my arm that were controversial. People in Northern Ireland did not want those Bills taken in this House, and the parties were divided on them.
In this particular case, there is no division and there will be no kickback from any party in the devolved Administration. In fact, the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister—the three Ministers who will be responsible for this—have all written to the Minister indicating that they would be fully supportive. They would be fully supportive because they believe that it would not be possible to keep in step with the timing of the legislation that will go through here, and the reason for that is quite clear. It is the way in which the Northern Ireland Assembly is obliged by law to consult on legislation.
I do not even know whether the legislation would first have to be included in the programme for government, which would be one step, and after it had been included in the programme for government, consulted on. However, even if it we only have it as stand-alone legislation outside the programme for government, there is a 12-week consultation period. As the Deputy First Minister and the First Minister have pointed out, that means legislation could not even be considered in the Northern Ireland Assembly this side of the summer recess, so we would be talking about the autumn. There is a compelling case not only because there is no opposition, but because, if it were to go down the route of the Northern Ireland Assembly, it would be delayed.

Kevan Jones: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with me that the number of cases is small—I have heard different figures, but we are talking about no more than 30 cases—but that cannot justify the delay, which he is eloquently describing, in keeping these people from their recourse to justice?

Sammy Wilson: I think that is right. Some people may, of course, turn that argument around and say, “It’s only a small number of cases, so why should we be concerned?” But although the number may be small,  since this issue has become so public there is public outrage on behalf of those who have been unfairly treated. Many people who have spoken to me about this have not been affected personally by the Horizon scandal, but there is a sense of injustice that some people were affected in such a way—they lost their reputation, their money, their business, in some cases their families, and their peace of mind—and there is a need not to delay any longer if at all possible. One way of ensuring that there is no such delay is to include Northern Ireland in the Bill.
When the Secretary of State was asked about this issue she said that she wanted to avoid unintentional consequences. Those unintentional consequences were unspecified because we did not get any examples, but I do not see how there could be unintentional consequences from including Northern Ireland in the Bill. It is a tight piece of legislation. It specifies who is covered by it, what offences are covered, and the way that the exoneration would be implemented by having records removed and so on. I cannot see where the unintended consequences would be, and I find that argument fairly weak.

Chris Stephens: The hon. Gentleman has described the logistical problems. Does he agree that if the territorial provisions were extended to Scotland and Northern Ireland, all that would be required are legislative consent motions from the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Scottish Parliament, which would be a cleaner and more efficient way of dealing with this issue for people in Northern Ireland and Scotland?

Sammy Wilson: I am not even sure that in Northern Ireland a legislative consent motion would be required, simply because the Executive has already indicated that they would be happy for Northern Ireland to be included. I do not see how this would tramp on any political sensitivities, and it cannot have unintended consequences.
Another argument has been, “But look, you’re going to upset the judiciary.” In my view it doesn’t matter whether the judiciary are upset by a decision made in this House or in the Assembly. If they are going to be upset, they are going to be upset. I suspect they will not be, however, because I am sure that many of the judges recognise that in the light of evidence that has now become available, the decisions made have to be looked at again anyway. I do not think there is an argument there.
Another argument that was made, I think by an Opposition Member, is that politicians in devolved Administrations should take the risk and take responsibility for the job they are required to do. I do not mind politicians taking responsibility for things they have been responsible for, but this was not an issue that politicians in Northern Ireland, or indeed Scotland, were responsible for. The Post Office was not a devolved issue; it was reserved. The prosecutions were initiated by actions taken by the Post Office. To say, “You’ve got to man up and take responsibility”—I am not so sure that that argument stands when this is a national issue. The Post Office is organised on a national basis, and the compensation will be organised on a national basis. Therefore, to me there is no responsibility there for the devolved Administrations.

Alistair Carmichael: As a matter of fact, the situation is different in Scotland, where prosecutions are taken in the name of the Procurator Fiscal Service or the Lord Advocate, depending on the forum, and they receive only the report from the Post Office. The prosecution decision is made by the prosecuting authorities. I understand that in other parts of the United Kingdom the Post Office can prosecute in its own right, but that is not the situation in Scotland and that is why it is different.

Sammy Wilson: I am not going to enter into a debate about Scotland, because I do not have enough knowledge of the situation, but surely the way around this issue relates to the individuals responsible for having taken the prosecutions and for advising the Scottish Government. That is perhaps where we should be looking. If they are all satisfied that the decision should be taken here in Westminster, why not include that in the Bill? I am sure the Scottish nationalists can argue their case very well.
The one thing I would say as a Unionist is that I am pleased that the SNP recognises that there is a role for Westminster. If the Scottish Government want to give some of their powers to Westminster on this particular issue, I will take that as a Unionist win.

Marion Fellows: The fact is that the Scottish Government want the Bill to go through for all four nations of the UK, and they would give a legislative consent motion for that to happen. That surely indicates that in this case, as the right hon. Member has already said, this issue arose here and should be sorted out here. In Scotland and in England, there were prosecutions by the CPS; the prosecutions that this place will exonerate through the Bill are not only Post Office prosecutions.

Sammy Wilson: I am not going to become a kind of spokesperson for the Scottish National party on this particular issue; I am arguing the case for Northern Ireland, but I also believe there is a parallel. I know that there will be differences, and we have heard the arguments back and forward today as to why Scotland might be treated differently and everything else, but there is a sour taste in people’s mouths because of the injustice over the Horizon scandal. Let us not let that persist.
If there is a way of sweetening the issue and dealing with it respectfully, impacting on everybody and ensuring that those who have had this cloud hanging over them—those who have lost out financially and in many other ways—can be exonerated and sorted out, let us do it quickly and fairly and ensure that we put this injustice behind us as quickly as we can.

Alistair Carmichael: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson). He says that he is proud as a Unionist to see this decision being taken here, but I say to him gently: be wary of Scottish nationalists bearing gifts of UK accountability, because essentially that is where we have come to today. I will pick up the point about territorial jurisdiction later, but I first want to say a word or two of more general application.
A lot of people in this debate have spoken about this legislation being unprecedented and about the concerns of some in the legal profession and the judiciary and the discomfort they feel. Those feelings of discomfort are  entirely appropriate and legitimate, and I would be more concerned if they were not there. However, it is because of the wholly exceptional nature of the situation facing those prosecuted as a consequence of the deception of the Post Office and Fujitsu and the misuse of the Horizon software that we should have a Bill of this sort. I, along with my colleagues on the Liberal Democrat Benches, have no difficulty in supporting the Bill.
I should declare an interest as a recovering solicitor: it is 22-and-a-half years since I surrendered my practising certificate, no doubt to the relief of many. To my former colleagues I would say that it is worth asking why we have courts in the first place. Essentially, we have courts because it is important that there are bodies able to give the general public confidence that the various vehicles of the state work properly and that people can get justice. Do they get it right all the time? No, of course they do not. When I was a solicitor, we often used to say, “Justice has to be seen to be done, and it often has to be seen to be believed.”
Let us not forget that the judiciary are like the rest of us; if they are cut, they bleed. They are vulnerable to the same human foibles as us. They ultimately have to be accountable for people at moments like this. Those who have said that the judiciary need to take a look at themselves are right to say that. I take mild exception to the suggestion that somehow or another the doctrine of the separation of powers builds an impenetrable wall between the different legs of the constitution. It does not.
This House created the very institution of the Supreme Court barely 20 years ago. We interfere all the time in the running of the courts by setting their budgets and telling them what rules of procedure and evidence they can follow, and nobody takes exception to that. What we are dealing with here is an interference of a different order altogether, but it is one that conforms to the principle that there are occasions when this House, as a sovereign Parliament, has to act and intervene. I think the nature and scale of the injustices that have been visited on people here absolutely justify that.
The question about territorial jurisdiction is an important one. I listened very carefully to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), who, incidentally, I rate very highly—at the risk of killing her political career stone dead by praise. I have enormous respect for how she has managed the all-party parliamentary group on post offices and the very measured and effective way she has prosecuted the case for postmasters, sub-postmasters and Post Office employees. That applies not just in relation to the Horizon scandal, but in the day-to-day operation of the Post Office itself.
It pains me to find myself in a different place from the hon. Lady. I said to her last night that I am still open to be persuaded, but my starting point has to be that we judge the issue by the outcomes for the postmasters themselves. Essentially, can we get those affected in Scotland to the same place by allowing the Scottish Parliament to do its job, constitutionally as it is charged to do, or, in order to get everybody in the same place at the same time, do we have to do it here?

Chris Stephens: To kill the right hon. Gentleman’s political career, I should say that I have the same respect as he has for my hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows). As he said, this debate is about how we can best get justice to the victims. Can I  offer as a solution something that is happening now? The Criminal Justice Bill, which has not reached all stages of the parliamentary process, already has a legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament for the areas of the Bill that impact Scotland. Perhaps that is a way of getting around the territorial debate. If Scotland and Northern Ireland were put there, it would allow legislative consent both in Northern Ireland and Scotland to happen concurrently, at the same time as the legislation is passing here.

Alistair Carmichael: That is one way in which the procedure could be done. However, I say to the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw that the question of quashing convictions is just one element of justice. The other important element is that those who were responsible for initiating the prosecutions must be accountable. That accountability would be missing if the provisions for Scotland were put in this Bill or the Criminal Justice Bill. That accountability is important for the quality of justice, if it is achievable within the timescale; we are balancing competing demands.
The position of Northern Ireland is qualitatively different because there is a statutory requirement for a 12-week consultation. The Scottish Parliament does not have that requirement, so it would be able to proceed.

Angus MacNeil: I apologise for not being here at the beginning, as I was chairing the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. The other leg of justice that must be served is compensation, which I am sure the right hon. Gentleman was coming to anyway. Compensation is not just for those who were convicted, as a lot of people out there dipped into their own pockets and paid money to the Post Office to keep the heavies away and prevent prosecution. Those people also need to see justice. One of the big things is moving the legislation forward so that all that happens and the money gets to the people.

Alistair Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman is right. If he has been listening, he will have heard me speak on a number of occasions about my work to support constituents who are pursuing claims as part of the historic shortfall scheme. That would be the route to compensation for the people to whom the hon. Gentleman refers.
We have taken a particular approach quite deliberately and for good reason. Because the Post Office function is reserved legislatively to the United Kingdom Parliament, as a United Kingdom operation, the compensation should be paid on a UK-wide basis. However, the decisions to prosecute were taken in Scotland, by law officers accountable to the Scottish Parliament. For that reason, it makes sense for the Scottish Parliament to deal with the consequences of those prosecutions.

Angus MacNeil: I do not necessarily have the answer, but the problem is that if the Scottish Parliament quashes the prosecutions, there could be a hiatus while we wait for Westminster to do something and the money arrives. It is a chicken and egg situation. I would much prefer the Scottish Parliament to sort it and to have the resources to compensate, but unfortunately in the UK that is not the world we live in.

Alistair Carmichael: I do not think it is unfortunate, but highly fortunate and deliberate, that we are in the UK, but we will save that debate for another day. The compensation  can and will be paid on a UK-wide basis. Given the timescale that the Government have outlined so far, we would expect the convictions to be quashed on the basis of this Bill by the middle of July. That gives the Scottish Parliament time to meet the same timescales, so that victims in Scotland have their cases quashed by that time.

Kevin Hollinrake: The right hon. Gentleman is making some important points about the way the prosecution systems work in different parts of the UK, which we must take into account. On the point by the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Angus Brendan MacNeil) on paying redress, the key thing is overturning the conviction. Once that conviction is overturned, wherever in the UK, that individual will have immediate access to the redress scheme wherever they are in the UK. There is no hiatus, as he described it.

Alistair Carmichael: I am grateful to the Minister for that. Those who are not convicted will have access to compensation through the historic shortfall scheme—a process available to them at the moment.

Kevin Hollinrake: The Bill relates only to overturning convictions. There is a discussion about territorial extent, which I understand and am happy to continue to discuss. The three compensation schemes—the Horizon shortfall scheme, the group litigation order scheme and the overturned conviction scheme—are all UK-wide, so that whatever detriment is experienced, wherever they are in the UK, there is no delay to compensation. There is no difference, in terms of compensation, between one part of the UK and another. We are keen to expedite it wherever it is in the UK and we have work to do.

Alistair Carmichael: I do not really need to answer that, so I will take the hon. Lady’s intervention.

Marion Fellows: I thank the right hon. Gentleman. One of the issues about timing, and it is about timing, is that I think everyone would agree that it is best that every victim is exonerated at the same time. As we do not yet have the programme for the timing of the Committee and Third Reading stages, it is possible that the Scottish Parliament could be in recess. It will be in recess as early as 29 June, a full month before this place.

Alistair Carmichael: That is a political decision for the Scottish Government, who control the Scottish Parliament’s business, to take.

Marion Fellows: May I gently correct the right hon. Gentleman? The recess dates are not set by the Scottish Government; they are set by the parliamentary board.

Alistair Carmichael: They are set by the Parliamentary Bureau, of which the majority of members come from the SNP and the Greens. I have kept this fairly broad in its terms. Can I just say gently to the hon. Lady that if the Scottish Government, instead of trying to evade political accountability, would take their responsibilities seriously and get on with it, they would get on with the drafting of the necessary legislation? If they want to wait and see how it all works here, to see if there are further amendments, then of course they can do so. They should be mindful of the fact that, apart from this one point, on the substantive provisions in the Bill there  is complete unanimity across all parties in the House. So I would not see this as a Bill that is likely to attract amendment on the substance.
If the hon. Lady wishes to introduce her amendments relating to jurisdiction at a later stage, then that is another matter altogether. If we consider the consequences for the substance of the Bill, we would effectively be writing a whole new part of it. For example, if we have regard to the offences for which compensation is to be paid, very few are terms of art in Scots law, so we would be writing a new Bill to be inserted here.
Why are the Scottish Government so resistant to getting on and doing what they are constitutionally charged to do, when they could do it if they started now, in a timescale that brings everybody to the same place? The hon. Lady herself said that compensation had to be done equitably and fairly. I put it to her and to her colleagues that the consequence of their route being followed would be Scottish victims having justice of a lesser quality, because the decisions about prosecution are accountable to this House in England, and there would be no such accountability for decisions on prosecution if they were to be taken in the Scottish Parliament.

Chris Stephens: Not true.

Alistair Carmichael: Can the hon. Gentleman sitting to my left explain to me why he thinks that is not true?

Chris Stephens: I will—and I am always to his left, as he knows. If the Parliament discusses legislative consent, that is where the accountability takes place. I say to the right hon. Gentleman again—he does not need to answer it today, because the Bill will go through other stages and the Minister said he is considering it—that I hope he will consider the Criminal Justice Bill example and legislative consent as a solution to the issue.

Alistair Carmichael: It is a solution to the issue inasmuch as it is another means of doing the same thing that the hon. Gentleman’s party wants to do in respect of the Bill, but it is not a solution inasmuch as it allows that level of accountability, and it is the accountability that matters.
The current Lord Advocate, Dorothy Bain, has already said, on the record, that
“not every case involving Horizon evidence will be a miscarriage of justice and each case must be considered carefully and with regard to the law. It is also important to recognise”
—as others have said here—
“the important…constitutional role of our Appeal Court in Scotland and that due process must be followed.”
That is a qualitatively different approach from the one that is at the heart of the Bill. The Lord Advocate may be right, but that is where she has to explain herself; and she also has to explain the decisions that were taken by her predecessors. It is 30 years ago now, but I did start my legal career, meagre and modest though it may have been, at the Crown Office in Edinburgh. Elish Angiolini, whom we were fêting here a week or two ago for her report on the workings of the Metropolitan police, was my first boss when I was a trainee solicitor there. My second boss was Frank Mulholland—now Lord Mulholland —the second Lord Advocate who would have had responsibility for some of these cases. All of them will have to be accountable in their own way.
The current Lord Advocate will of course be accountable, and it is obvious from the statement she gave to the Scottish Parliament that her work is already fairly well advanced. She has confirmed that the Scottish Criminal Cases Review Commission wrote to 73 potential victims of the Horizon scandal in 2020. She has also confirmed that the Crown Office has identified another 54 cases that are being reviewed by prosecutors, and that many of those cases have been contacted by the SCCRC as well. As of March 2024, 19 people have come forward to have their cases reviewed. Eight of them have been referred to court, with six having their cases cleared. The remaining two cases are still pending an outcome.
Given the amount of work that has been done and given the nature of what the Lord Advocate has said on the record, it makes, to my mind, absolutely no sense for the Scottish elements of this one narrow part—on the decisions to prosecute—to be taken differently. It comes down to accountability, and if we have learned nothing else throughout this whole sorry episode of the Horizon system and Post Office Ltd, surely we have learned that, at the end of the day, accountability makes a difference.

Stephen Farry: It is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael). I will return the conversation to the subject of Northern Ireland, but only briefly, because the issues have been aired reasonably well already today.
Let me first put on the record my own and my party’s welcome for the Bill, and thank the Minister for the work that he has done so far. We certainly recognise that this is a highly exceptional situation that justifies the approach that has been taken. We cannot be certain that we will never face a similar situation at some time in the years or decades ahead, but this situation does warrant that approach, because it is about exoneration, and concepts such as pardons do not quite fit the bill. It should be clearly on the record that there should never have been prosecutions, and that any convictions should be entirely void. The words “amnesty” and “pardon” suggest that something wrong had been done prior to those developments.
I thank the Minister for his ongoing engagement, specifically in respect of the conversations I have had with him about Northern Ireland. I also thank the Opposition Front Benchers for making it clear that they are open to the inclusion of Northern Ireland in the Bill.
I want to explain briefly why we believe that action is warranted in Westminster in that regard. This is, essentially, a UK-wide scandal that requires a UK-wide solution. The Post Office is a reserved matter, so we need a UK-wide response. The issues that have come about were not in the gift or control of the devolved Administrations, who could not have sought to prevent them, even if they had had the foresight to identify the problems that were emerging.
The difficulty now is that if Northern Ireland is left to act separately, we will see further injustice emerge. The Executive have just been restored, and they have other priorities at present, such as getting up and running. However, even if the Assembly had been functioning for some time, the process would require a public consultation on how business is done in Northern Ireland. Not carrying out such a consultation would pose the ongoing risk of a judicial review, which would further complicate  matters and probably elongate the process. That would be counterproductive, so the public consultation has to be priced in.
A Bill will take time to draft, and the Department of Justice can look at what has happened in England and Wales, but there would still need to be a minimum of eight weeks—in practice, probably 12 weeks—for the public consultation. That would then have to be evaluated, and any legislation introduced in the Assembly would go through its own process. Even with the best will in the world, I do not see how the process could be concluded until well into the autumn of this year, and it could take longer. That would create a situation in which some of the victims of the scandal who have received false convictions will be waiting longer for justice than their counterparts everywhere else in the UK. Given that exoneration is the gateway to compensation, they would be further penalised, in the sense that they would be doubly delayed—in receiving exoneration and in accessing compensation—so natural justice leans heavily towards the Administration in London taking action on behalf of Northern Ireland.
In response to the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson), I want to stress the scale of the political consensus on this issue in Northern Ireland. That is rare, but it is precious whenever it does emerge. There is a sense that we want this to be done as quickly as possible, and we want to be pragmatic. I utterly dismiss the notion that Parliament is treading on devolved toes by acting in place of the Executive and the Assembly. Right across the political spectrum, the parties want this to happen, so there will be no political blowback on action being taken. Obviously, it has to be done on a case-by-case basis, but given the extraordinary circumstances of this situation, there is an overwhelming argument for Northern Ireland to be included in the Bill.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s summation shortly. I hope that he can give an indication of whether he is willing to accept amendments in Committee, subject to the proper motions being put in place to facilitate changes to the legislation as currently drafted.

Rushanara Ali: We are now over two decades into this scandal, with the victims still suffering the ongoing consequences of this injustice: unjust prison sentences, bankruptcy, ostracisation from communities, family breakdown and homelessness. Tragically, as we have heard, this scandal has led to some people taking their lives. According to the Post Office Horizon IT inquiry, at least 60 sub-postmasters had died without seeing justice or receiving compensation as of 10 August 2023, and at least four had taken their own lives. All our thoughts continue to be with their families.
This scandal has been a seismic tragedy at every stage. The mental toll and stress that victims have faced is beyond what many of us can begin to comprehend. This scandal has been defined at every turn by an abuse of power, disregard for sub-postmasters’ lives, the passing of blame and perpetual delay.
This Bill is an important step forward in addressing the greatest miscarriages of justice in our country. It will mean that hundreds of innocent victims will have their rightful innocence returned to them. However, this is just one of a number of actions that need to be taken to  make amends and to correct this terrible injustice. We need to see convictions quashed, compensation delivered urgently and justice sought from the independent inquiry.
Along with other colleagues, I pay tribute to Alan Bates and the many sub-postmasters who have campaigned and worked tirelessly to see justice. This Bill marks an important victory for sub-postmasters, and I pay tribute to their bravery and perseverance in the face of so much suffering and adversity. They have had so much taken from them, and yet they have kept fighting. This is truly remarkable, and it is wonderful to hear the tributes that have been paid by so many across the House and also across our country.
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for all his work fighting on behalf of sub-postmasters, and to Lord Arbuthnot for his years of work on tackling this injustice. I also thank the Minister for postal affairs, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Kevin Hollinrake), for all his work, from the Back Benches as well as from the Front Bench. There have been many Members across the two Houses who have highlighted the injustice suffered by sub-postmasters, and I extend the Opposition’s appreciation for the work they have done and for the cross-party nature of the campaigning that has gone on thus far.
I think we can all agree that the influence of the ITV drama “Mr Bates vs the Post Office” has been very significant in this campaign. The Minister has done a huge amount of work, but there is no denying that that programme has brought to the attention of the wider public the scandal that has affected so many sub-postmasters. However, it should not have taken the release of that drama to get to where we are today. This is in no way a criticism; it is a recognition of the fact that certain scandals have needed that wider attention from the media, from programmes and documentaries, before attention is received. But we are where we are, and it is encouraging to see the steps that have been taken.
This Bill will quash the convictions of the sub-postmasters and others who worked in the Post Office branches who suffered as a result of the Horizon scandal. As has already been said, and I further stress, the quashing of these convictions must not set a precedent. The Bill undermines a key part of our democracy, the separation of the legislature and judiciary. As has been said earlier, it is a constitutional anomaly. We must understand the weight of this so that such action is never considered again. The legal solution of this Bill is a wholly exceptional and isolated case, where these necessary actions will be taken to match a miscarriage of justice unprecedented in both scale and impact. As the shadow Business Secretary, my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), has made clear, an incoming Labour Government would never use this kind of action again.
I echo the comments on the territorial scope of today’s Bill and restate that the Labour party supports the calls to extend the provisions of the Bill to the cases in Northern Ireland. Every party in Northern Ireland and every Minister in the new Assembly is calling for their inclusion in the Bill. Their exclusion will sadly only delay the exoneration of victims in Northern Ireland all the more, so I hope the Minister will seriously  consider this decision and what can be done further, and take on board the points that have been made by hon. Members including my hon. Friend the shadow Business Secretary.
We have heard many powerful contributions in today’s debate, and there is broad agreement on the Bill’s necessity. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Sir David Davis) highlighted his misgivings, and he described the Bill as representing
“the best of a bad job.”
Of course, he extended his support and highlighted the Bill’s unprecedented nature.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Liam Byrne) made the case for speed in granting compensation. My right hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) raised important concerns about the potential limitations of setting deadlines for paying compensation. While ensuring the proper handling of complex cases, I hope the Government will take those points into consideration.
My right hon. Friend also raised important points about the need for the judiciary and the Government to learn broader lessons from this scandal so that they can be applied to other scandals, a number of which have been mentioned in the debate, including the contaminated blood scandal and the Windrush scandal. It is encouraging to see such eagerness to reflect and learn so that things do not have to go this far before being addressed.
The hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows) has been a tireless advocate and campaigner for justice for sub-postmasters, and she rightly highlighted the need to continue our laser-sharp focus on supporting victims. She and others in her party relayed, once again, the concern that Scotland has been left out of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully) spoke powerfully about his time as postal affairs Minister. As he is standing down, I commend him for his work in the Department and for his wider cross-party work on a number of issues, including Myanmar with me and many other colleagues. We wish him well in his future endeavours. Like others, he raised the need to learn lessons and to ensure that, when we say that scandals of this scale must never happen again, we truly ensure that they never happen again.
The hon. Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) spoke powerfully about his career as a sub-postmaster. He brings insight to this debate and the campaign, and he reflected on how he has supported his constituent who has faced trauma, and how he has drawn those lessons into the Minister’s work. I was struck by the way in which he reflected on the wider issues.
The hon. Gentleman said that work is needed on the Post Office’s culture in tackling wider systemic issues, and he said that the Post Office is “losing its soul”. As we look to the future, I hope the Government will consider how we make the necessary reforms so that the Post Office is fit for purpose. He rightly said that Fujitsu needs to be held accountable, and that it should pay compensation. Although that is outside the scope of this Bill, the Minister and others need to ensure that Fujitsu pays for what was caused by its technological failures.
The right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) made a powerful case for those whose appeals have been rejected, and he argued that their cases need to be  reconsidered. I know that the Minister has responded and will look at those issues closely. The right hon. Member also made the point about territorial scope, reinforcing the point about the need for Northern Ireland to be included in the Bill. The point about the 12-week consultation has been made consistently, as it means that the 27 or 30 Northern Irish cases will face huge delays. That means further suffering, so it is important for the Government to consider including Northern Ireland, as we have called for.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) made the case for the Scottish Government to introduce legislation in parallel in Scotland. Much work has been done in Scotland and the case for needing to work in parallel, in lockstep, to ensure that there are provisions in Scotland has been made. The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) spoke about prosecutions that should never have taken place. Once again, he made the case for Northern Ireland’s inclusion and for avoiding delay.
We have heard many powerful testimonies from victims who have said that they lost decades of their lives to this scandal. Katie Downey, who set up the group Lost Chances for the Children of Sub-postmasters to support the children of some of the victims of the scandal, said that when her father was made bankrupt by the scandal she was 11 years old and her family had to flee to France. She stopped speaking for two years as a result of the trauma; her childhood was shaped by this injustice. We must not forget the wide-reaching impact of this scandal on family members. There are children, spouses, parents, close friends and neighbours who have not only journeyed with the victims, but suffered themselves and lived out the consequences of this injustice.
Seema Misra was jailed on her son’s 10th birthday, while she was pregnant, after being pronounced guilty of stealing £74,000 from the post office she ran—she had been wrongly accused. Ms Misra and her husband had been trying for a baby for eight years and what should have been one of the happiest moments of their lives became a nightmare. She was put under suicide watch in prison and describes how she reached “rock bottom”. Those are only two stories of the horrors that have defined the lives of victims.
Today, I thank colleagues from across the House for powerfully sharing the examples of the cases they have dealt with, be they those of constituents or cases they have come across through their campaigning work. I also thank colleagues for the tireless work they have done in advocating for those people, telling their stories, talking to Ministers and persisting. These people’s stories and voices must be central in shaping our next steps in the pursuit of their compensation, of justice and of their exoneration. We welcome this crucial piece of legislation, but it is by no means anywhere close to an end point. It is merely a further step in the right direction in securing justice for the sub-postmasters.
We support the work of the independent inquiry in uncovering the full and precise truth of all that has unfolded in the Post Office. Truth and justice has been denied to sub-postmasters at every turn, and I hope that the inquiry will finally provide the transparency that is desperately needed. There is much still to be done in the pursuit of justice for sub-postmasters, and we must all continue to support them and do all we can to right the many wrongs they have suffered.

Rosie Winterton: Order. Before I call the Minister, may I remind those who have contributed to the debate that it is very important to get back for the wind-ups, including for the beginning of the one by the shadow Minister? I call Kevin Hollinrake.

Kevin Hollinrake: For Members of the House, the wider public and, most of all, the victims of this horrendous scandal, today’s Bill cannot come soon enough. The day that the convictions are finally quashed, redress is finally paid and those victims can get on with their lives cannot come soon enough. The Bill will quash relevant convictions of individuals who worked, including on a voluntary basis, in post office branches and who suffered as a consequence of the Post Office Horizon IT scandal. It will quash, on a blanket basis, convictions for various theft, fraud and related offences during the period of the Horizon scandal in England and Wales.
The Bill is an exceptional response that recognises the constitutional sensitivity and unprecedented nature of the situation. The Government are clear that given the factually exceptional nature of the case, the legislation does not set a precedent for the future relationship between the Executive, Parliament and the judiciary. The scale and circumstances of the prosecutorial and investigatory misconduct means that a rapid approach is needed to deliver long overdue justice, while respecting the separation of powers and delicate constitutional balance.
I first spoke on the matter from the Back Benches some years ago, in the context of other scandals involving the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Bank, after a gentleman called Paul Marshall, a barrister involved in the cases, wrote to me drawing parallels between the Post Office Horizon case and the banking scandal. It was back in March 2020 that I first spoke about the issue and Lee Castleton’s tragic case. Because of the scale of the injustice, the depth of the damage and the despair, and the unacceptable delays in delivering justice, we must act in this exceptional manner.
I will touch on points raised in contributions to the debate. I thank the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), and the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Rushanara Ali), for their collaborative approach. I join them in thanking one of my predecessors, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Paul Scully), on the tremendous job he did. We all wish him well in whatever he chooses to do in his new life, but I remind him that he still has work to do in this place because we have much work to do.
I gently push back on some of the points made by the shadow Minister, who said that the TV drama had stimulated the work that has gone on in recent weeks and today. We are public servants and we should respond to public outcry, so I welcome the new attention focused on the issue by the general public, the media and the House. However, I remind hon. Members and, most importantly, the victims that we put many measures in place to try to deal with the matter, not always as successfully or as quickly as we would have liked: the Horizon shortfall scheme and the inquiry, which started in 2020; the group litigation order compensation scheme; the Horizon compensation advisory board, on which the right hon. Member for North Durham (Mr Jones)  sits so effectively; and the £600,000 fixed-sum awards for those whose convictions had been overturned, which was put in place last autumn. The exploration into how we might overturn convictions more quickly began some months before the TV dramatisation came to our screens. Indeed, the Post Office (Horizon System) Compensation Act 2024 assigned a deadline date that proved difficult for some of the victims.
The shadow Secretary of State pointed to possible service level agreements, in response to issues raised by the Business and Trade Committee about timings for compensation. As he and the shadow Minister know, there are service level agreements in the current compensation and the group litigation order compensation schemes that say there will be a response to 90% of final claims submitted within 40 days. We are hitting 87% against that metric, so we are making progress. We are considering such agreements in elements of the new scheme and other schemes, so I will come back to the House about that.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde raised the point about Northern Ireland, as many other Members have, and we are taking that very seriously. We are sympathetic to the issue, particularly as the Assembly is newly formed. The requirement for public consultations in that jurisdiction may delay things, and we will bear that in mind in our deliberations.
The shadow Minister quite rightly raised the point about the impact of this not just on the victims, but on the victims’ families, their children and their spouses. Indeed, terrible things have happened to many of those families, including break-ups and suicides. We have all witnessed on our TV screens the extent of this problem. We will certainly consider mental health support for the affected individuals.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Sir Robert Neill) talked about a sunset clause. Interestingly, following his intervention on a sunset clause, three other legal opinions on a similar matter did not all agree with his point. The key thing is that all convictions are quashed the day this legislation comes into effect, which should be in July. Irrespective of the fact that we may not have identified somebody in the list of people whom we will write to following the passing of this Bill, their conviction will have been quashed. If they come forward to self-certify and we look at their case, that conviction will have already been quashed; we just need to mark the record.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) spoke about political accountability, which I shall come back to a bit later, because he raises some very important points. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr David Davis) said that this matter should have been dealt with in the courtroom. I think that we would all have preferred to see that. I have described this process in the past as the lesser of two evils. We must acknowledge that the first of the 983 convictions were overturned in 2021. Thus far, only 102 convictions have been overturned. That pace of progress cannot be countenanced, which is why we have taken this particular approach. I thank him, though, for his kind words on my work, but I reiterate that the Secretary of State has been hugely supportive of everything that I have been asked to do and that   I wanted to do in this space. The same applies to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer and many other Ministers right across Government.
Let me turn now to the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), for whom I have a great deal of time and with whom I have spent a great deal of time working on this issue. Her work on the all-party group on post offices is also invaluable. I fully understand her points about Scotland. She wants to ensure that her legislation works simultaneously with this legislation. We believe that that can happen in Scotland. There are no barriers as such with Scotland in the way that there are potentially with Northern Ireland. We also must bear in mind that the Lord Advocate tends to have a different opinion as to whether this is the right way to go about things. In taking this route, we have had to make some difficult political choices. One is to exclude cases that have been heard by the Court of Appeal. That is the decision that we had to take here—as I say, these were very difficult choices. The point about political accountability is important, which is why we decided to use this objective criteria route. The hon. Lady’s objective criteria would have to be different. For instance, Scotland has a different prosecutorial system, so the legislation cannot be identical. There are differences whichever way we look at this, so I am sure that this debate will continue.

Ian Paisley Jnr: I thank the Minister for giving way. He knows that we have huge admiration for the way that he has tried to wrestle his way through these issues. At the end of these proceedings, I intend to lay an instruction to the House motion. Is that necessary? Can the Minister tell us now that he will take this on and include Northern Ireland in the Bill?

Kevin Hollinrake: I understand the hon. Member’s point. I can tell him from this Dispatch Box that it is something on which we will continue to have dialogue. I have talked to his colleagues today and yesterday. In fact, I met the First Minister, the Deputy First Minister and the Justice Minister yesterday to discuss these matters. They raised some interesting points that we need to take into account. I am very happy to keep those conversations ongoing, so I will happily have a further conversation with him after this debate.

Chris Stephens: The Minister is showing his customary politeness and kindness. He has outlined the discussions with Northern Ireland. The main issue is how we get a solution that satisfies everyone across these islands, so will he also have those discussions with the Scottish Government, particularly around the territorial issue, and will he say something about Asda employees in Scotland who are also caught up in this?

Kevin Hollinrake: I absolutely give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. We want everything to happen simultaneously. Our ambition is to get the legislation passed by July. If people choose the fixed sum award route, we can pay compensation rapidly. They have two choices of route to take. The £600,000 can be delivered very quickly—literally within weeks of passing the legislation. We want to pass the legislation by July; we could be paying compensation as quickly as by August. Exactly the same thing can happen in Scotland if the Scottish Government effect the legislation at the same pace. My officials are working with officials of the SNP-led Government in Scotland on a weekly basis to  try to ensure that that is the case. I have met with my counterpart in the Scottish Government to talk about this issue.
I did not quite get the hon. Gentleman’s point about employees. He might want to intervene on me again, so I can address it properly.

Chris Stephens: A number of Members have mentioned, as I have, the particular issue of Asda employees in Scotland. Has the Minister thought about that?

Kevin Hollinrake: Employees generally are an issue, because they do not have a contractual relationship with the Post Office, which is required to enter the compensation scheme, but if the company itself did have one it could make a compensation claim that could then be passed on to that individual. I am very happy to discuss individual cases with the hon. Gentleman, or with other Members.
I pay tribute again to all the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam. I agree that this was a case of human failure as well as technological failure, and that the wheels of justice are moving too slowly. That is why we have stepped in in this way. I am always grateful for the work of the right hon. Member for North Durham, not least on the Horizon compensation advisory board. He has made some important recommendations, which we have adopted. He gave a four-legged analogy about the person I am: he called me more shire horse than show pony, which I take as a compliment. I would describe him in a four-legged way as well: he is a cross between a terrier and a rottweiler, and he is highly effective in the way he approaches this issue.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about convictions relating to pilot versions of Horizon. That is why we have set the date at 23 December 1996. That is the first point of the roll-out of an application called Pathway, which was a predecessor Horizon application. We think that the legislation, and therefore the redress schemes, capture—if I can use that word—cases that relate to the pilot schemes in clause 8.
As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we look at the Capture system slightly differently. Capture is a stand-alone spreadsheet rather than a network computer system. There is no remote access, for example. The key thing is that what we are doing here is exceptional and unprecedented. We have the body of evidence because it has been before a court. Part of the reason the court made its decision in 2019 was based on the Horizon issues, as it put it. We do not have that body of evidence with Capture. We are keen to talk to him to ensure that we look at the evidence. That conversation will continue.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about the power to make consequential provision. We do not see that as giving us the ability to include another group of people; there are different reasons why that power is in the Bill. It is for matters that are a consequence of the Bill, which we do not think is the right vehicle to include people, for example, who have been affected by the Capture system. As I say, we will continue to discuss that.
As I said earlier, we understand the arguments about Northern Ireland, and we will continue to engage, as we will with other Members of this House. In terms of reasonable steps, the process is in development. It is about marking the records and writing to individuals. When we have passed the legislation, we will write  literally that day, or the next day, to those individuals to say, “You’re conviction has been quashed,” and we will give them details about how to claim compensation.

Kevan Jones: I know that the Minister is committed to ensuring that everyone is contacted. What about the legacy cases—when people have passed away? Will someone try to contact their estates, for example?

Kevin Hollinrake: Those are challenging issues. The key thing—I hope the right hon. Gentleman takes this in the right way—is that what we are doing here to quash convictions does not require people to come forward. When the conviction has been quashed, we will contact the most relevant person in that context. Those people can take forward a claim in exactly the same way, and it will be considered in exactly the same way, as any other claim. The estate, the families, can claim compensation.

Kevan Jones: I agree with the Minister, but I think this needs to be given some thought. Perhaps the advisory board might look at legacy cases in which people have passed away, because those entitled to compensation might not come forward. We might have further discussion about that.

Kevin Hollinrake: I am very happy for us to look at that, and to work with the right hon. Gentleman and the advisory board. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to him, Lord Arbuthnot, Sir Chris Hodges, and Professor Richard Moorhead for their work in this area. We will continue to work closely alongside the right hon. Gentleman.
My hon. Friend the Member for North Norfolk (Duncan Baker) recognised the work of people other than me on this matter—not least the Secretary of State, the Prime Minister and the Chancellor. I recognise that he is the only serving postmaster in this place, so we always listen carefully to what he says. Like him, we encourage people to come forward to claim compensation.
The people not included in the legislation—those who have been convicted as a result of prosecution by the DWP—can still appeal in the normal way, and I encourage them to do so if they feel that there are grounds for that. My hon. Friend asked about Fujitsu and the quantum it is due to pay. Our view has always been that we should let the inquiry conclude and determine responsibility. We will then know the extent of the compensation bill, and that will be the right time to have a conversation about contributions, for which Fujitsu has already accept a moral responsibility; we welcome that. Although the Post Office has had a chequered past in this regard, I believe that it has a very bright future, and we are keen to ensure that it does. We should always keep that in mind.
I understand what the right hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) said about the territorial extent of the Bill. As I said, I met the First Minister, Deputy First Minister and the Minster of Justice for Northern Ireland yesterday, and I will continue to do so. We are determined to ensure that measures are brought forward as quickly as possible in all areas of the United Kingdom. The right hon. Member makes a compelling case about the need for public consultations in his jurisdiction. We are aware of that. There are 26 cases in Northern Ireland, and we are keen to ensure that they are overturned as quickly as possible. We will continue work to ensure that that happens.
The right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland talked clearly about ensuring that prosecutors are accountable for their role. Decisions were taken in Scotland. He was right to say clearly that a legislative consent motion does not offer the same level of parliamentary accountability, and I think we should all reflect on that. His final words were “accountability makes a difference.”
The hon. Member for North Down (Stephen Farry) talked about his preference for the measures to be UK-wide. We understand that; we have had several conversations and will have many more, I am sure. I understand his point about the risks of judicial review and of delays to public consultation. He feels that he makes an overwhelming argument. We will keep those conversations going.
I concur with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Bow, and echo her tribute to Alan Bates, Jo Hamilton, Lee Castleton, journalist Nick Wallis, campaigner Dan Neidle, another journalist Tom Witherow, Lord Arbuthnot, Karl Flinders and many others, including many Members of this House. We pay tribute to them for their work. We recognise the profound impacts that the Horizon scandal has had on those who were falsely accused. It has taken too long to get to this point, and our ambition is to get this legislation through both Houses by July and compensation paid to the victims by August. Through this Bill, we will exonerate those who were so unjustly convicted of crimes that they did not commit and provide fair redress as swiftly as possible. I commend it to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill (Programme)

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 83A(7)),
That the following provisions shall apply to the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill:
Committal
(1) The Bill shall be committed to a Committee of the whole House.
Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, on Consideration and on Third Reading
(2) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House, any proceedings on Consideration and proceedings on Third Reading shall be completed either in one day or in two days, in accordance with the following provisions of this Order.
(3) Proceedings in Committee of the whole House shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion five hours after their commencement.
(4) If there are no proceedings on Consideration, proceedings on Third Reading—
(a) shall be taken on the day on which proceedings in Committee commenced, and
(b) shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour after the commencement of proceedings on Third Reading.
(5) If there are proceedings on Consideration—
(a) those proceedings shall be taken on the second day, and shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion one hour before the moment of interruption on that day, and
(b) proceedings on Third Reading shall (so far as not previously concluded) be brought to a conclusion at the moment of interruption on that day.
Programming committee
(6) Standing Order No. 83B (Programming committees) shall not apply to proceedings in Committee of the whole House, to any proceedings on Consideration or to proceedings on Third Reading.
Other proceedings
(7) Any other proceedings on the Bill may be programmed.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.

Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill (Money)

King’s recommendation signified.
Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 52(1)(a)),
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Post Office (Horizon System) Offences Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State by virtue of the Act.—(Mike Wood.)
Question agreed to.

Petition - Proposed Mallard Solar Plant

Alicia Kearns: This petition calls on the Government to protect the rural character of Rutland and the Stamford villages, and thousands of acres of the best and most versatile agricultural land, by saying no to Canadian Solar and its use of Uyghur blood labour and no to the Mallard Pass solar plant. I thank the 3,414 people who physically signed the petition —that is a colossal number for an extremely rural area—and give a huge thank you to the Mallard Pass Action Group for its leadership and dedication, in particular Sue Holloway, Helen Woolley and Adele Stainsby, who are in the Gallery today, as well as Tony Orvis, Philip Britton and Trevor Burfield. The petition is also delivered in tribute to Keith Busfield.
The 3,414 petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and reject the proposed development of the 2,175-acre Mallard Pass solar plant on the Rutland and Lincolnshire borders.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that the proposed Mallard Pass solar plant should be rejected; further that the inappropriate scale of this development would lead to irreversible damage to the community due to the loss of quality, productive agricultural land, the loss of the natural character of the countryside, lasting damage on biodiversity and the environment, damage to historical assets and identity, and the risk of a solar plant produced by forced labour in the developers’ supply chain.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002919]

Petition - Sharlotte’s Law

Jonathan Gullis: I rise to present a petition signed 5,825 times on behalf of six-year-old Sharlotte-Sky Naglis, who tragically lost her life thanks to John Owen, who was driving over the speed limit while under the influence of both drugs and alcohol. Following this tragedy, Mr Owen fell into a temporary coma, and under the current law his blood  could not be tested without his consent, despite it being able to be taken without it. Therefore, this petition—thanks to Sharlotte’s inspiring mother Claire—seeks a change to the Road Traffic Act 1988, and the petitioners request
“that the House of Commons urge the Government to reform Section 7A(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and remove the requirement for consent for the testing of a suspect’s blood in the event of death by collision with a motor vehicle.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Stoke-on-Trent North,
Declares that following the tragic death of a six-year-old Sharlotte-Sky Naglis in June 2021, delays were caused to the sentencing of her killer due to the legal requirement of consent for a blood sample to be tested; notes that this was extremely difficult for the family of the victim.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reform Section 7A(4) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and remove the requirement for consent for the testing of a suspect's blood in the event of death by collision with a motor vehicle.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002922]

Petition - Recommendations of the Infected Blood Inquiry

Chris Stephens: I rise with a petition from the sophisticated electorate of the Glasgow South West constituency. I pay special thanks to Cathy Young and Nicola Stewart from the Scottish Infected Blood Forum—particularly for the tie I am wearing today, which is a birthday present for me. They are making a reasonable point, as are many constituents in Glasgow South West, about the recommendations for compensation for those affected by infected blood lodged by Sir Brian Langstaff in April 2023. Those recommendations have still not received action from the Government, and the petition declares
“that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Glasgow South West,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002932]

Andrew Gwynne: Yesterday at Treasury questions, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson), said:
“I gently say to the right hon. Lady that I stand by every word I said when I gave evidence, twice, to the infected blood inquiry. The Government have an absolute moral responsibility, not just to pay the compensation owed, but to pay it as speedily as possible.”—[Official Report, 19 March 2024; Vol. 747, c. 804.]
My constituents have one clear response: if the Chancellor accepts the case, why has it not been done?
This petition from the constituents of Denton and Reddish therefore calls on the House of Commons to urge the Government to implement the recommendations in the second interim report of the infected blood inquiry without delay.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Denton and Reddish.
Declares that people who received infected blood and who as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002935]

Rachael Maskell: Too many people have died without justice or compensation for being provided with infected blood. Their families suffer today, and such injustices are deepened given that the interim report has not been implemented and the interim compensation payments have not being paid, when there is an opportunity for that to be done.
I thank Sir Brian Langstaff, who is due to publish his report in May, Sir Robert Francis, who has worked on the compensation payments, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Dame Diana Johnson) for the tenacious way in which they have sought to secure compensation and learning from one of the greatest tragedies of the last 50 years.
Yet there was nothing in this year’s Budget to say that the compensation would be paid. People and their families have suffered enough. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons should urge the Government to implement the recommendations of the second interim report of the infected blood inquiry without delay.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of York Central,
Declares that people who received infected blood and who have suffered as a consequence have, along with their families, waited far too long for redress.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to implement the recommendations in the Second Interim Report of the Infected Blood Inquiry without delay.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002938]

Petition - Barclays Bank Closure in Suffolk

Therese Coffey: I rise to present this petition on behalf of the residents of Suffolk Coastal and the wider Suffolk area. It recognises that Barclays bank will close its Leiston branch in May, which means Barclays will have closed all eight of its branches in Suffolk Coastal, including Aldeburgh, Felixstowe, Halesworth, Martlesham Heath, Saxmundham, Southwold and Woodbridge.
Furthermore, we are concerned that rural areas such as Suffolk are more likely to be at risk of bank branch closures. Meanwhile, the Financial Conduct Authority has been given extra powers under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023, and we are very concerned about the assessment of the justification of the closure by Barclays, which the FCA is expected to validate.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Barclays to keep open its last remaining branch, in Leiston in Suffolk Coastal, and to require the Financial Conduct Authority to publish its assessment of the justification given by Barclays for the closure of its Leiston branch.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of Suffolk Coastal and the wider Suffolk area,
Declares that Barclays Bank has stated it will close its Leiston branch; further that this means Barclays will have closed all of its branches in Suffolk Coastal including Aldeburgh, Felixstowe, Halesworth, Martlesham Heath, Saxmundham, Southwold and Woodbridge; further that the petitioners believe that rural areas like Suffolk are more likely to be at risk of bank closures; further recognises the powers of the Financial Conduct Authority given under the Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 regarding access to cash and bank closures; and further that it is concerned at the validity of the assessment of the justification of closure by Barclays.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage Barclays to keep open their last remaining branch in Leiston is Suffolk Coastal; and to require the Financial Conduct Authority to publish its assessment of the justification given by Barclays for closure of its Leiston Branch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002936]

Petition - Access to GP Appointments

Fleur Anderson: I present a petition from hundreds of residents of Putney, Southfields, Roehampton and Wandsworth town asking for improved access to GP appointments. Many local residents feel that they have to wait for too long for appointments, are having to phone up at 8 o’clock to try to get an appointment or do not have face-to-face appointments when they need them, and that their health outcomes are worse as a result. They absolutely acknowledge that GP staff are working incredibly hard to meet the needs of patients, and many local surgeries are run very well with good access to appointments. However, others are not, and they are asking for more support from the Government. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitioners, and take immediate action to ensure that access to GP appointments is improved.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that more support is needed for doctors' surgeries so that it is easier for people to get a GP appointment when they need it; further that GP staff are working incredibly hard to meet the needs of patients, but the Government needs to do more to ensure that patient needs are met; further that 4.5 million people are going to Accident and Emergency departments in hospitals a year because they cannot access a GP appointment.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to consider the concerns of the petitions and take immediate action to ensure that access to GP appointments is improved.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P002937]

Scrutiny of Secretaries of State in the House of Lords

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now Adjourn.—(Mike Wood.)

Patrick Grady: I suppose I ought to begin by wishing my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Chris Stephens) a very happy birthday, based on what he was saying about the birthday present he has just received.
Madam Deputy Speaker, as you and other occupants of the Chair often remind us, topical questions are supposed to be short and to the point. But I having been unsuccessful in catching Mr Speaker’s eye during topical questions to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office last week, and following my point of order later that day, he kindly granted this Adjournment debate to explore what would otherwise have been a very short topical question: where is the Foreign Secretary and why is he not answering questions in this House? We now have the opportunity to explore that in a little more detail, and I am grateful to Mr Speaker for that.
We might as well acknowledge at the start that, even though we have more time than might have been expected to explore this issue, I suspect that the Government’s response will be relatively short, and that the Minister will simply suggest that the House must wait patiently for them to publish their response to the Procedure Committee’s recent report on this issue within the usual timescale.
However, that does not change the reality that the appointment of David Cameron as Foreign Secretary in the House of Lords has had immediate and practical consequences for Members of this House, and it raises wider questions about the relationship between the two Houses, the accountability of Ministers more generally, and the kind of precedent that his appointment has set. The Government should be prepared to answer those kinds of questions at any time, and they should certainly have thought some of those things through before the appointment was made. If they are going to smash up conventions by appointing a Foreign Secretary from the Lords, they should not have to hide behind conventions about timescales for responding to Select Committee reports before trying to justify that decision and deal with its consequences.
There are therefore two interlinked themes that it is worth exploring. First are some of the practical implications and consequences relating specifically to the current Foreign Secretary being a member of the House of Lords, but there are also the wider principles involved about how Ministers—especially those who sit in the Lords—are scrutinised by the elected House.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Gentleman for securing this debate. I spoke to him beforehand, and I well understand the issue he brings to the House. There is a clear disconnect between the essence of elected democrats and the scrutiny of Secretaries of State who sit in Cabinet, and moreover the electorate. Does he agree that in order to tackle this issue and ensure that all Secretaries of State are liable to answer to Members of the House of Commons, more must be done to overcome this issue in future and ensure that it does not become a regular occurrence?

Patrick Grady: I thank the hon. Gentleman—another important parliamentary convention has now been observed with his intervention in the Adjournment debate. I am grateful for and agree very much with the point he makes, and we will look at all that in a bit more detail. Indeed, most of us will be familiar with the context that he started to describe.
The Prime Minister announced on Monday 13 November that David Cameron would be appointed to the House of Lords and would serve as Foreign Secretary. Mr Speaker wrote to the Procedure Committee on 22 November requesting that it explore options for enhanced scrutiny by the House of Commons of senior Ministers in the House of Lords. The Procedure Committee, of which I and some other Members present are members, published its report and recommendations—including the key recommendation that the Foreign Secretary should appear before this House to answer questions—on 17 January 2024. Two months later, we are still waiting for the Government’s response.
As I said in my point of order last week, there have been two sessions of FCDO questions since that report was published, and no sign of the Foreign Secretary. In fact, there have been three sessions of FCDO questions since his appointment, and if the usual rota continues, we can extrapolate that there ought to be another three sessions before the summer recess. FCDO Ministers have responded to 10 urgent questions, including one today, and made eight oral statements since the new Foreign Secretary was appointed. There have been 22 written statements from FCDO Ministers in the Commons, three of which have been on behalf of FCDO Ministers in the Lords, including one in the name of the Foreign Secretary himself. As each question session passes, and as each urgent question is answered or statement made, the accountability gap grows wider, the frustration of Members of this House increases and the absurdity of the situation becomes clearer.

Nigel Mills: I welcome this debate. As Lord Cameron has agreed, and as has been re-instigated, he is now taking half an hour of questions in the Lords directly to him, not to other Ministers. In the House of Commons we get no minutes and no questions to the Foreign Secretary. That cannot be right for a democratic Chamber, can it?

Patrick Grady: Absolutely. That is precisely why it is important that we have the opportunity to draw these points to the Government’s attention. Incidentally, I do not know whether he has written it down or said it anywhere, but around the time of his appointment there were indications from Lord Cameron that he would be happy to co-operate with accountability mechanisms, but they do not seem to have been put in place, and I will come back to that.
Accountability is particularly important, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, because we are living through times of significant global turmoil, with perhaps some of the biggest threats to the established rules-based order of peace and security since the second world war. There is no guaranteed or permanent mechanism for Members of this elected House as a whole to directly question and scrutinise the work of the Government’s chief diplomat, their roving ambassador on the world stage, their voice in the corridors of foreign powers: His Majesty’s  Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, the right hon. David Cameron, Baron Cameron of Chipping Norton.

Rachael Maskell: I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing forward this debate. Our constituents are writing to us at this time about the challenging situation we see in Gaza, and clearly they want answers from the person who is making decisions. Given the lack of accountability in the system when there could be war crimes being committed—not least by our own country in trading arms—it is absolutely right that we should have the opportunity to scrutinise. Does he believe that we need to ensure that we have a Foreign Secretary who is elected democratically from our country and that they should not be sitting in the House of Lords?

Patrick Grady: Yes, precisely. The key point is accountability to this elected House, and I will come on to that in more detail. We have been elected to hold the Government to account, and we are being denied that opportunity because of decisions made by the Prime Minister.
Much of this comes down to what the Prime Minister and the Government wanted to achieve by the appointment of David Cameron in the first place. It might have shaken up the world of breaking news and podcast analysis for a few days. It might have signalled some kind of change in direction of the Government’s priorities. It might have calmed the blue wall, even if at the same time it was slightly worrying the red wall. It also sends a strange message to every Conservative Member of this House—perhaps every Member other than the Prime Minister himself—that none of them are good enough or have the necessary skills or experience at this point in time to be the Foreign Secretary. That applies not least to the immediately previous Foreign Secretary. He may have been redeployed to be Home Secretary, but he has still essentially been judged by the Prime Minister not to be the right person for the job.
The end result, as we have already heard in interventions, is woefully inadequate opportunities for Members of the Commons to scrutinise effectively the work of the Foreign Secretary and, by extension, the Foreign Office as a whole. Many of us have a huge amount of respect and regard for the Minister for International Development, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) —not something people will often hear SNP Members say about Conservative Ministers. However, he now has to effectively deputise for the Foreign Secretary in this House, without any additional ministerial support having been provided in the Commons team, as far as I can tell, so by definition he has more to deal with than before. It must stretch him and his team, no matter how deftly and effectively they try to work. No matter how capable any of the Ministers are, none of them can truly answer on behalf of the Foreign Secretary, for the simple reason that they are not the Foreign Secretary. They will not have been in the meetings he has been in, been on the trips he has been on or attended the summits he has attended, so all their answers, all their responses to questions and all their positions outlined in statements are second-hand at best.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Martin Docherty-Hughes), who cannot be here this evening, wrote a powerful letter to the Procedure Committee when it was considering this matter. He highlighted the ongoing situation of his constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, who has been arbitrarily detained by the Government of India for nearly seven years. I have heard from many of my constituents who share those concerns about the treatment of Mr Johal. My hon. Friend’s letter, and his point of order in the House on 10 January, drew attention to what he called the “extraordinary lack of response” from the Foreign Secretary to letters about this case and his frustration about not being able to raise these concerns directly with the Foreign Secretary on the Floor of the House. Such frustrations and concerns were present in other evidence taken by the Procedure Committee and have been heard in other departmental questions, urgent questions, statements, points of order, in Westminster Hall debates and even in interventions right here this evening.
The Procedure Committee considered a range of options and possibilities for enhanced scrutiny of Lords Ministers, particularly the Secretary of State. It looked at previous suggestions of holding question sessions in Westminster Hall or one of the larger Committee Rooms, or convening a special Grand Committee either here in the Chamber or elsewhere, but it came to the conclusion that the simplest and most straightforward way to scrutinise the Foreign Secretary would be for him appear in the Chamber during departmental questions and for any relevant UQs or statements and to answer questions from the Bar of the House.
The Hansard Society suggested in its evidence that there may be some practical and presentational issues with the Foreign Secretary standing, presumably at a lectern, at the Bar of the House while other Ministers continued to answer from the Dispatch Box. I think the word used was “ridiculous”. Perhaps some of us would have some sympathy with that, but it should not be insurmountable. Then there is the question of whether the Lords would need to give permission for one of its Members to appear in the Commons or whether the Commons would need to agree to some kind of resolution to make changes to its Standing Orders. But none of that should be insurmountable. All of these issues, starting with the actual appointment of the Foreign Secretary, are in the gift of the Government.
Ultimately, whether the Foreign Secretary comes to answer questions in this House, like pretty much everything else that happens here, is for the Government to decide. The Government can make it happen or they can choose not to make it happen. By choosing not to do so, they will send a message about exactly what kind of regard they have for this House, for the mandate we have for our constituents and, therefore, for our constituents themselves.
We can recognise that the appointment was not totally without precedent. The Procedure Committee’s report and the very thorough and helpful Library briefing on the subject both list various examples of Ministers and Secretaries of State who have served in the Lords in recent and not-so-recent times, but that does not mean that those situations were not also sub-optimal in how the Ministers were scrutinised and held to account. There have been some attempts to distinguish between Secretaries of State for various Government Departments and those that have been considered great offices of state.  However, the concept of a “great office of state” is not written down anywhere, and any Prime Minister at any time could choose to change or divide the responsibilities of the Treasury, Home Office or the FCDO, which not so long ago was the Foreign and Commonwealth Office before one of the many former Prime Ministers we have had in recent years merged it with the Department for International Development.
In each case where a Secretary of State has been appointed in the Lords, whether that was Lord Mandelson as Business Secretary or Baroness Morgan as Culture Secretary, the governing party at the time said that it was all fine and there were lines of accountability to the Commons, and the official Opposition at the time were suitably outraged and said it was an appalling state of affairs that would never happen on their watch. That tells us a lot about the interchangeability of the two major parties in UK politics and the imperative of any incumbent Government of whatever colour to maintain the established status quo of constitutional convention and practice.
Perhaps that starts to get us to the broader points of principle at play and the broader question of whether the Government and the Prime Minister, or indeed any past or future UK Governments and Prime Ministers, really care all that much about scrutiny by this House and the role of the Commons more generally. The established principle in this Parliament and the devolved institutions is that the Executive is drawn from, and accountable to and through, the legislature. There are plenty of examples around the world where members of the Executive—the equivalent of Ministers and Secretaries of State—are not drawn from the legislature. In many of those cases, however—we think particularly of the United States—there is an incredibly thorough vetting and approval process. Appointment hearings in the United States Senate can take days or weeks, even for relatively junior appointments.
Closer to home, in Scotland’s Parliament—indeed, we saw it happen today in Wales with the appointment of the new First Minister—the appointment of Scottish Government Cabinet Secretaries and Ministers must be agreed to by Parliament before they are approved by the King. Incidentally, that includes the Lord Advocate and Solicitor General for Scotland, who are not Members of the Scottish Parliament but appear in its Chamber, which is designed to accommodate them, so they can sit or stand and answer questions and be held to account by the elected Members.
A process for approval of Ministers by a vote of the legislature could quite easily be adopted in this Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart) tried to introduce something precisely to that end through a ten-minute rule Bill in a previous Session. In some respects it ought to be a formality, because if the Government can command a majority that accepts the Prime Minister’s decisions about ministerial appointments, it should be able get those appointments through. At the very least it would allow some public deliberation and questioning about the wisdom of individual appointments and the relevant experience, suitability, and perhaps outside interests, of Ministers-designate. I am sure that people might have had questions about the Foreign Secretary’s outside interests upon his appointment. Such accountability is not something that a Government confident in their decision making and command of a majority in the House should be afraid of.
There have also been questions about reciprocity: if Ministers who are Lords are to appear before the Commons to take questions, should Ministers who are MPs appear before the Lords? On the face of it that might not seem an entirely unreasonable question, but it comes back to the point about accountability, which is relevant to the intervention from the hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell). Members of the House of Lords have been appointed to their positions for the rest of their lives by the Prime Minister of the day, or perhaps because they are a bishop in the Church of England or someone’s ancestor. Members of the House of Commons are accountable to their voters. Our constituents make a choice about who should represent them and we make representations on their behalf, not least by asking questions of Ministers—that comes back to the point made by the hon. Member for York Central.
The question of whether the Minister is elected is slightly beside the point. In this debate, I do not expect a response from the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) on behalf of the people in his constituency; I am putting questions on behalf of the people of Glasgow North to the Government, and I expect and look forward to a response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Cabinet Office. As the hon. Lady said, our constituency inboxes are full of huge issues, none bigger at the moment than the situation in Israel and Gaza and the need for an immediate ceasefire. However, there is no way for any of us to put those views directly to the Foreign Secretary. I have no method of putting that point on the record directly to him, and of receiving a response on behalf of the people of Glasgow North.
That leads us not just to questions about the scrutiny of Lords Ministers by the Commons, but to the role and purpose of the second Chamber, the accountability of unelected parliamentarians, the relationship between both Houses and the relationship between the legislature and the Executive. That goes back to the point that I, and many others, have made before: meaningful reform of the Lords is not possible without meaningful reform of the Commons. Meaningful reform of the Commons would mean the Government—in particular, the Prime Minister—giving up significant powers of patronage, appointment and executive control. Neither of the main parties wants to give that up once it has achieved power.
There is a reason why the Labour party has been promising and failing to deliver meaningful reform of the House of Lords for over 100 years. Giving up the power to directly appoint Members to the House of Lords would be a significant diminution of the Prime Minister’s powers of patronage. Fully or even partially electing the Lords would inevitably challenge the assumed supremacy of the Commons. The first priority of any UK Government on acquiring power is to retain that power; that will not change after the next election, no matter the outcome.
The Minister will tell us all to wait patiently for the Government’s official response to the Procedure Committee’s report, and perhaps even tell us that it will be published soon or before the recess. We can take a pretty good guess at what it will say. If the Government wanted the Foreign Secretary to appear before this House at departmental questions or at any other point, they would have already made arrangements for that  to happen.
Constituents in Glasgow North, some of whom were represented by the hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway) once upon a time, will look on with confusion, disappointment and increasing disenchantment. The Scottish Parliament is not perfect, but its procedures for scrutiny of Ministers and accessibility to the wider public are light years beyond what is in place in Westminster. Just as there is reason why the Labour party has repeatedly failed to reform the Lords, there is reason why the SNP refuses to take seats in the unelected House.
When Scotland becomes independent, perhaps there will be some kind of second Chamber of Parliament, or a stronger system of participative and deliberative democracy through citizens’ assemblies to explore proposals before the legislature takes them forward. Whatever the shape and form, it will be decided by the people of Scotland, who are and always will be sovereign in Scotland, irrespective of the conventions and traditions of Westminster. A Foreign Secretary in an independent Scotland—certainly one with an SNP Government—would work to uphold peace and human rights around the world, invest in poverty reduction and tackling climate change, and represent a country proud at last to be free of nuclear weapons of mass destruction.
The longer Westminster diverges from that vision, transparency and accountability, and the more Prime Ministers, of whatever flavour from whatever wing of whatever party, think they can avoid scrutiny by elected parliamentarians and appoint their friends, donors and allies to positions of power without consequences, the more the people in Glasgow North and across Scotland will come to realise the difference that we can make and will make with independence.

George Galloway: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady), my successor as the Member of Parliament for the most educated place in Britain. It was once said that the Glasgow Hillhead constituency had the highest pro rata subscription rate to the New Statesman of any constituency in the land. He showed it in the erudition, albeit on a rather Ruritanian state of affairs, of his contribution. I am grateful to him for securing this debate and for giving me time that might otherwise have been appropriated by him to make this contribution.
“Some chicken, some neck,” Mr Churchill famously said. To paraphrase Mr Churchill, some Secretary of State, some time. This is not comparable to Peter Mandelson being the Business Secretary in the House of Lords; this is a time of great international peril, where foreign affairs is undoubtedly the biggest single item in our inboxes. It must be true: there are millions on the streets. Well, it is certainly true of my inbox. There are millions on the streets about Britain’s foreign policy. There are demonstrations daily and weekly all over the country. People are seized of our role in international affairs. I have never known a time like it—and there cannot be many Members in the House who have participated in more foreign policy issues, from the 1980s until now—when our people are so occupied, and many are preoccupied, by our role in the world.
What I am about to say is in no sense disrespect for the current occupant of the Foreign Secretaryship. Quite the contrary: he is a big improvement on his predecessor,  and he is a cut above his likely successor. I do not demur at all from the idea that Lord Cameron is a skilled international diplomat. Our problem, as a country which is forever lecturing other people on the quality of their democracy, is that we now have an unelected head of state, an unelected Prime Minister and an unelected Foreign Secretary, the second most important piece on the Treasury Bench. That is Ruritanian. It is actually rather absurd if you start to consider it.
The hon. Member for Glasgow North was adumbrating the possible outcomes of a lectern being erected just at that white line there. The microphones would need to be adjusted and faced that way instead of towards you, Madam Deputy Speaker. That is ridiculous. If there was a will, there would be a way. The silence from the Government in response to the Procedure Committee’s beseeching of them to find a solution to this situation is eloquent, as such lengthy silences always are.
We have a situation where daily, if not hourly, new and dramatic foreign policy developments are occurring. Just this day, for example, Prime Minister Netanyahu announced that the port being built in Gaza with the rubble of the homes destroyed in the bombing, including the skulls and the bones of the people destroyed with the houses and lying unburied under the rubble, is being built for the deportation of millions of Palestinians from the territory—an act of ethnic cleansing of the foulest kind. We would have expected a statement from the Foreign Secretary in the light of such a dramatic development, but statement came there none, and good has come there none. His able deputy—and I share the hon. Gentleman’s feelings for the Minister of State; he is a fine man, and I have known him for a very long time—cannot possibly cope with all this workload as, effectively, Lord Cameron’s deputy in this place, his vicar on earth; but even if he could, he would still not be the Foreign Secretary. We cannot continue to be a democratic country—

Chris Stephens: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

George Galloway: Of course.

Chris Stephens: rose—

Rosie Winterton: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be brief, because it is very unusual for a Member to come in after an Adjournment debate has started and then to intervene. Let me add that it is important for everyone who does intervene to stay until the end of the debate.

Chris Stephens: Thank you for that strict reminder, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if he or I were to secure an urgent question, the same principle would apply and the Foreign Secretary would not be here?

George Galloway: Indeed, could not be here—for reasons which are what? Are they about architecture? Kindly guide me with your eyebrows as you normally do, Madam Deputy Speaker, if I am going on for too long; I am not entirely sure about the timing of all this.
As a matter of architecture, for a democratic Chamber to be bereft of the presence of its principal diplomat and the country’s principal diplomat, at a time of massive  international tension, is completely absurd. On this day in 2003, our country went off to fight the most disastrous war that we have fought for well over 100 years. It was a disastrous decision, but at least it was a decision that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary of the day were ready to, and had to, defend each and every single day. The debates—not many of us who are here now were involved in them, except thee and me, Madam Deputy Speaker—were of the fiercest and most urgent kind. But we may now be on the brink of world war three. Little Macron may be about to march his legionnaires into Odesa, creating the gravest international crisis since the second world war, and we will not be able to question our Foreign Secretary about it. We will have to wait for the morning editions to learn what the Government intend to do.
War in Ukraine, war in Gaza, maybe war against Iran, war in the Red sea, war everywhere; Foreign Secretary, nowhere—nowhere, at least, where he can be questioned by the people in this country who are elected to question him. That is the point, Madam Deputy Speaker. It is our duty to hold Ministers to account, but by definition, in this situation we cannot hold the occupant of this office to account. We talk about great offices of state. At such a time of high tension, there can be no doubt that the second most important office of state in Britain today is that of the Foreign Secretary, but he is outwith our reach. We cannot, as we once did, rub shoulders with him in the Division Lobby; we cannot even see him in the Members’ Tea Room. We cannot bump into him in the Corridor. We cannot in any way impress on him that millions upon millions of our fellow citizens and our constituents have this or that concern or point of view on the great issues of the day. This is untenable, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am seeking to inject some note of urgency and passion into this because it is an untenable situation.
I wish that it had been possible to find one Conservative Member who was capable of being Foreign Secretary. It would have been much easier, and this debate would not be happening, but none of them was up to the job. It is therefore immediately incumbent on the Government to bring forward a solution whereby we are able to look in the eyes of the second most important politician in the state and press upon him the political preoccupations that occupy the concerns of millions of us.

Nigel Mills: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway). I agree with every word he said, and I am not sure that I have ever been in a position to say that.
I rise to make a few observations about the Procedure Committee’s report, which was not an easy one. I do not think that any of us came into this place with the idea that we would willingly invite Members of the House of Lords to come and sit on these green Benches and address us, and I do not think that any of us want to accidentally encourage this Government or future ones to appoint more Secretaries of State in the House of Lords because they can get away with it. Finding a bit of accountability does not make it all right. However, the simple fact is that the Government appointed somebody from the House of Lords as the second most important member of the Government at probably the most dangerous time in the world in my adult lifetime, resulting in a situation whereby we cannot question him or impress  our views on him before he goes around the world, and we cannot hear from him about what he has said at all his meetings.
I actually think that the appointment of Lord Cameron was a very good one. He is an incredibly able politician and, from the look of it, he has been working incredibly hard to represent our national interests around the world. I will not criticise the individual who has been appointed, but surely the Government can see that this is not a tolerable situation for the elected House to be placed in.
The Procedure Committee tried to come up with some sort of solution that gave us a bit of accountability, accepting that we could not find a perfect solution. We started with our predecessor Committee’s views on the appointments of Lord Mandelson and Lord Adonis back in 2009. The Committee recommended having question sessions in Westminster Hall every couple of months, but the problem we had with that is that Westminster Hall is not big enough. If Lord Cameron were to appear in Westminster Hall to answer general questions about foreign affairs, or even on a single topic, we might find that substantially more MPs would want to ask questions than could be safely accommodated, which would equally apply to any Committee Room in this place. Then we would have to work out whether we would have balloted questions in advance, which is not generally done in Westminster Hall. We would have to put in place a whole load of arrangements that we have never had before for the relatively short time left of this Parliament.
I hope that Lord Cameron is Foreign Secretary for a long time, which would mean that such arrangements are needed for a lot longer, but if we rule out Westminster Hall and any Committee Rooms, the only thing we are left with is conducting question sessions in the House of Commons Chamber. We did not have general support for the idea of having a Member of the House of Lords sitting on a green Bench and addressing this House from the Dispatch Box, and there is not a great deal of precedent for that. It leaves only the Bar of the House as the place to conduct such sessions. We even talked about the idea of Lord Cameron beaming in from the screen, like President Zelensky did or like Boris Johnson did when he was answering Prime Minister’s questions when he had covid. Not having the Foreign Secretary here, so that we could look him in the white of his eyes, would have been imperfect too.
If we believe that this House should have some level of scrutiny of the Foreign Secretary, there is no alternative to it taking place in this Chamber, and the Procedure Committee came up with the least bad option of that happening at the Bar of the House. We would have no problem with the Government saying, “Let’s have him on that Bench and at the Dispatch Box,” but it would be equally imperfect to have him here for general Foreign Office questions. We could have recommended that he come here for a dedicated half-hour question time, like he does in the House of Lords. The problem is that that would give the one Secretary of State in the House of Lords greater accountability in the House of Commons, because he would answer questions for a whole half an hour a month, whereas any other head of Department probably answers only a handful of questions in their half an hour of question time. We could then have more scrutiny of the Secretary of State in the Commons than in the Lords, which would not be perfect either.
All the options we have are terrible, but this was not the starting point of the Committee or the House; it was the position we were put in by the Government and we were trying to find the least bad way of fixing it. I hope the Minister does not resort to nit-picking about individual ideas. I hope he engages with the general principle that if the Government choose of their own volition to have one of the great offices of state held by someone who is not a Member of the House of Commons, there should be opportunities for the House of Commons to have regular scrutiny of that individual. We should be able to question them on what they are doing and try to impress on them the views of this House, so that they can present them around the world.
Alternatively, should we just leave it and accept that this is the way it has always been, given that Ministers in the Lords do not appear in this Chamber? I think that the balance we need to strike is that if someone of that seniority is dealing with issues of the level of importance we are seeing at the moment, we have to find a way forward in this situation. I have great regard for the Minister for Development and Africa, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), but with the best will in the world, he is not the Foreign Secretary. We need to be able to question the Foreign Secretary on the big issues.
Hopefully the Minister will give us the good news that the Government have come up with a preferred way for this to work, so that we can get on with this rapidly. That is what a modern democratic Parliament has every right to expect. If we are going to have Ministers in senior positions who are not Members of this House, we must find a way of scrutinising them, as is done in nearly every Parliament around the world that appoints Ministers who are not in that Chamber. They find a way to do it. This is not rocket science, and it is not without precedent. We can find a way of doing it, so let’s get on and do it.

Alex Burghart: I congratulate the hon. Member for Glasgow North (Patrick Grady) on bringing forward what is a genuinely interesting and surprisingly well-attended Adjournment debate. I think it is the best-attended Adjournment debate I have taken for some time. Were I in mischievous mood, I would gently refer him to the answers that I gave him on 18 November, 29 February and 12 March and resume my place, but alas mischief eludes me and I will give him as full an answer as I can.
Obviously the Government are considering the very good and serious report into this situation from the Procedure Committee. It is not an anomalous situation—it has arisen before—but it is right that we should consider it in a modern light. In the meantime, while we are waiting for the Government’s full consideration, there are a number of ways in which the Foreign Secretary is being held to account by Parliament as a whole. In the House of Lords, he answered questions on 21 November, 5 December, 15 January, 16 January, 13 February, 12 March and 15 March.[Official Report, 18 April 2024; Vol. 748, c. 5WC.] (Correction)
I know that the House of Lords is not a place where the Scottish National party goes to play. As the hon. Gentleman knows, because we have debated this on a  number of occasions, I think that is a great shame. I understand that the party’s plans and vision to break up the kingdom failed—with the support of the Scottish people, I am pleased to say. After that juncture, SNP Members would have done well to accept that that was a once-in-a-generation vote and that they were plausibly going to be here for some time if people continued to elect SNP Members to this House. It would therefore have been wise of them to stick a few people in the upper House so that the views of their party and that part of the electorate could be represented in that part of Parliament. They chose not to. Consequently they are now unable to question the Foreign Secretary when he stands to answer questions in the Lords, but that is their prerogative.

Rachael Maskell: The Minister will know that our constituents’ voices will not be heard in the other place, and that it is us who are elected to bring those voices forward. On 17 October, the Foreign Secretary at the time invited all Members of this House over to the Foreign Office to ask questions. Could the Minister explain why the Foreign Secretary has not made himself available, even in an informal way off the record, so that Members of Parliament from the House of Commons can scrutinise him over his decision making?

Alex Burghart: The hon. Lady will have an opportunity to ask that question of the Foreign Secretary’s colleagues when they next come to the House. I cannot answer the particulars because they pertain to the Foreign Office.
In the meantime, there will be opportunities to ask questions of the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell). Although it is true that he is not the Foreign Secretary, he is in the Cabinet and is bound by collective agreement. He sits in discussions at the highest level on all matters relating to foreign affairs, and he has answered questions in this House on 14 November, 21 November, 27 November, 7 December, 11 December, 12 December, 19 December, 8 January, 10 January, 24 January, 26 January, 29 January, 30 January, 21 February, 27 February, 28 February, 12 March and 19 March. Members of this House have had opportunities to ask questions of him—a man who sits in Cabinet and who knows the Foreign Secretary’s mind. I am sure he will be very grateful to hear the comments of the hon. Member for Glasgow North about his workload, but I can assure the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend is a very capable individual, as the hon. Member for Rochdale (George Galloway) said, and workload is not a problem from which he suffers.
While we await the Government’s response to the report, it is possible for Members to write to the Foreign Secretary. I know that the hon. Member for Glasgow North has written to him once and, having done so, I assume that he asked all the questions he would like to ask. If he has not, he is welcome to write a second letter.
There is a broader point that I raised with my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) when I was before the Procedure Committee, which is that there is an historical dimension that works with the grain of what the Committee is saying. This issue first arose, as you will probably know from your history lessons, Madam Deputy Speaker, in 1674, when the Commons chose to summon two peers, the Duke of  Buckingham and the Earl of Arlington, to answer questions—the Duke of Buckingham because he was considered to be lascivious, wicked and scandalous in his lifestyle, and the Earl of Arlington because he favoured papists. They were admonished by the Commons and sent on their way.
The response of the Lords was to point out that their House, too, had privileges, and that it is not within the power of the Commons to forcibly summon Members of the House of Lords to the Bar of the House. The Lords passed a Standing Order that said that Members of the House of Lords could not be summoned here.
However, it was still clear that Members of the House of Lords could be invited, and there have been a number of instances in which Members of the House of Lords have been invited to this House and have answered questions. In 1779, the Earl of Balcarres and Earl Cornwallis were brought here to answer questions about the Army’s conduct during the American revolution. In 1805, Lord Melville came to this House at his own request, having been impeached—he asked that the House gave him an audience. Lord Teignmouth was questioned twice about Indian affairs in 1806 and 1813. More famously, the Duke of Wellington came to give  an account of the peninsula war in 1814. I raise these points because we are all aware that there have been moments in not-so-recent history when commoners have come to the Bar. The last was in 1957, when Mr Junor was summoned over an issue in the press.
My point is that if the Commons wants to, it is capable of inviting a Member of the Lords to come to answer questions here. To a certain extent, history places the solution at the disposal of the hon. Member for Glasgow North: the Commons could invite the Foreign Secretary now to come to the Bar of the House to answer questions. However, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman is looking for something more routine, and for that I am afraid he will have to wait until the Government respond to the report.
In conclusion, it is right that we have this debate; it is important that there is scrutiny of the Government and of the Cabinet, and that is what this Government seek to provide.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.